News of the latest position came after councillors were shown a report detailing the situation.

Condor has rejected using the refurbished No 3 berth due to the size of the new vessel and instead favours No 1 berth.

If work on No1 berth went ahead, it is understood Condor would switch sailings to Poole for a year from 2015.

Councillors and community leaders are appalled at the news and feel that Condor Ferries should continue a ferry operation from Weymouth, rather than rely on the cash-strapped council to come up with further funding.

Council director of resources Jason Vaughan said the authority was doing ‘all it could to try and positively resolve the issue’.

It comes as the Dorset Echo launches a petition in a bid to persuade bosses at Condor Ferries to confirm its commitment to Weymouth.

Mayor of Weymouth and Portland Ray Banham said he felt the town was being held to ransom by Condor.

He added: “I’m shocked by the news, as most of the people of Weymouth and Portland are.”

He said the money to sort out No 1 berth was ‘money the council didn’t have’.

Cllr Banham said he understood Condor saves around £1million a year in sailing from Weymouth rather than Poole and that it benefited both the company and the local area.

He added: “We want to work with Condor, we want to keep them.

“I think both parties have to get their heads together to come to an agreement to get the work done.”

Tourism spokesman for the council Ian Bruce said: “Condor said they wanted to come back and when they did everything was working very well and now they turn round and say they want to do something differently.

“The best thing Condor can do is to start talking to us about the future and not playing a game where they think we will jump through hoops because it’s not going to happen.”

Cllr Bruce suggested if Condor operated its bigger vessel from Poole it could still sail a smaller catamaran from Weymouth. The ferry operation is worth millions to the economy and the area was hit hard when the company moved operations to Poole.

He said the loss of Condor would be a ‘serious blow’, adding: “I’m confident everyone is doing everything they can to ensure the business stays with us.”

President of the Weymouth and Portland Chamber of Commerce Julie Cleaver said that she didn’t want to see Condor go but the £10million investment had to be carefully considered. She added: “I don’t want them to go but at the same time we do need to look at it very carefully.”

Members of the chamber had suggested that Portland Port could be used as an alternative to Weymouth for Condor’s sailings, Mrs Cleaver said.

That is a suggestion also put forward by manager of the Business Improvement District (BID) Nigel Reed. He said clearly Condor wanted a bigger site but that it would be difficult for the borough council to afford the £10million.

He said: “Therefore the question could be asked, would Portland Port be more suitable for this?”

No-one at Portland Port was available for comment.

Cllr Ian Bruce has asked us to make it clear that he did not release any confidential information into the public domain when he was quoted in an Echo article about Condor on Thursday.

HOTELIERS IN SHOCK AT FERRY FIRM'S BOMBSHELL

HOTELIERS have spoke of their shock that Weymouth may lose Condor again.

Sue Mortimore of the Alexandra Hotel, who put up a banner for Condor’s return last year, said: “I’ll have to get the banner back out.

“It is a no-no – you don’t want to lose the service from here.

“People shouldn’t underestimate the amount of business that the town gets from that ferry.”

She added: “I see the cars coming off there – I know they have been busy this March and April.

“It is worrying that we could lose it. I thought, from what they said, that when they came back they would be here for a few years.”

She said the threat ‘could be a bullying tactic’ used by Condor to make the council take action, but that questions needed to be asked of the council as to how this situation came to be in the first place.

Mrs Mortimore she didn’t know whether Condor setting sail out of Portland could be an option because of the difficulty in getting to the port.

She added: “It’s a lot easier to come into Weymouth. There is just one road in to Portland.

“Weymouth is ideal for everybody.”

Sandra Reay, of The Channel Guest House, said: “I think it’s awful.

“Having Condor is a real boon to the town – not only for the hoteliers but for all of the town.

“The contribution that people who are using the ferry make to the economy is wonderful.

“We get people staying here who are going on the ferry, coming back from using the ferry, the engineers working on the ferry and the trainees.”

It calls on the firm to confirm its commitment to the town in light of revelations that its future in the town is uncertain amid plans to replace its existing vessels.

You can sign the petition either at dorsetecho. co.uk or add your name to copies which have been placed in local retailers selling the Echo.

COMEBACK WELCOMED BY BOROUGH

CONDOR made its long-awaited return to Weymouth last July after a 17-month absence.

The ferry operator switched its cross-Channel sailings to Poole due to a crumbling ferry berth at Weymouth quay.

The berth was fixed over the winter of 2012 in a project costing Weymouth and Portland Borough Council £4.47million.

Residents and holidaymakers were at the quayside last July to welcome the ferry back.

Condor revealed at the time that more than 70,000 people had already booked to travel through Weymouth.

Speaking when the ferry returned, chairman of the Weymouth harbour board Dominic Lonsdale said: “Condor’s return is all part of having a working harbour with a real variety, from a large vessel like Condor Vitesse to even the smallest of fishing boats.”

Condor is Weymouth port’s biggest customer and contributes more than £7million a year to the local economy.

Comments

JamesYoung
9:13am Fri 18 Apr 14

"Weymouth stunned" - who is stunned? I'm not.
"The Borough is reeling" - who is "the borough"? Assuming you mean the Borough of W&P, have you spoken to everybody in it?
It would be nice to read the story without the inaccurate superlatives.

"Weymouth stunned" - who is stunned? I'm not.
"The Borough is reeling" - who is "the borough"? Assuming you mean the Borough of W&P, have you spoken to everybody in it?
It would be nice to read the story without the inaccurate superlatives.JamesYoung

"Weymouth stunned" - who is stunned? I'm not.
"The Borough is reeling" - who is "the borough"? Assuming you mean the Borough of W&P, have you spoken to everybody in it?
It would be nice to read the story without the inaccurate superlatives.

Score: 38

PossumGoose
9:31am Fri 18 Apr 14

Shame this paper doesn’t have anyone able to do a bit of investigation. Is there a contract, what does it say, what are the penalty clauses?? Come on Echo, get out of the office and do some digging.

Shame this paper doesn’t have anyone able to do a bit of investigation. Is there a contract, what does it say, what are the penalty clauses?? Come on Echo, get out of the office and do some digging.PossumGoose

Shame this paper doesn’t have anyone able to do a bit of investigation. Is there a contract, what does it say, what are the penalty clauses?? Come on Echo, get out of the office and do some digging.

Score: 43

malkie
9:36am Fri 18 Apr 14

I'm not sure that this is not a big bluff by Condor. I have always understood that Poole is unsuitable for high-speed catamaran operation, as the "cats" must navigate the deep water channel at low speed before they can reach open water to allow them to get up on the plane. While they are travelling at slow speed, they are more liable to draw silt & sand into the engine intakes. This does not happen at Weymouth, as they reach deep water immediately after leaving the harbour.

I'm not sure that this is not a big bluff by Condor. I have always understood that Poole is unsuitable for high-speed catamaran operation, as the "cats" must navigate the deep water channel at low speed before they can reach open water to allow them to get up on the plane. While they are travelling at slow speed, they are more liable to draw silt & sand into the engine intakes. This does not happen at Weymouth, as they reach deep water immediately after leaving the harbour.malkie

I'm not sure that this is not a big bluff by Condor. I have always understood that Poole is unsuitable for high-speed catamaran operation, as the "cats" must navigate the deep water channel at low speed before they can reach open water to allow them to get up on the plane. While they are travelling at slow speed, they are more liable to draw silt & sand into the engine intakes. This does not happen at Weymouth, as they reach deep water immediately after leaving the harbour.

Score: 16

Woodgate
9:47am Fri 18 Apr 14

Weymouth has been blighted by a succession of WPBC councillors and officers with no commercial ability and whose only interest is in self serving and keeping the status quo. For heavens sake Council get some real world, expert help and look forward not back. Sick to death of reading about disgruntled hoteliers and someone from the Chamber of Commerce who says 'I hope they can sort something out'.......

Weymouth has been blighted by a succession of WPBC councillors and officers with no commercial ability and whose only interest is in self serving and keeping the status quo. For heavens sake Council get some real world, expert help and look forward not back. Sick to death of reading about disgruntled hoteliers and someone from the Chamber of Commerce who says 'I hope they can sort something out'.......Woodgate

Weymouth has been blighted by a succession of WPBC councillors and officers with no commercial ability and whose only interest is in self serving and keeping the status quo. For heavens sake Council get some real world, expert help and look forward not back. Sick to death of reading about disgruntled hoteliers and someone from the Chamber of Commerce who says 'I hope they can sort something out'.......

Score: 38

banknote
10:33am Fri 18 Apr 14

Woodgate wrote…

Weymouth has been blighted by a succession of WPBC councillors and officers with no commercial ability and whose only interest is in self serving and keeping the status quo. For heavens sake Council get some real world, expert help and look forward not back. Sick to death of reading about disgruntled hoteliers and someone from the Chamber of Commerce who says 'I hope they can sort something out'.......

Woodgate is so right.

Just look at the track record of the Weymouth Council:-

Failure to attract conference and concert trade in the 1960/70's

Failure to attract business development

Failure to work with DCC to develop a workable road system.

Wake-up WPBC, the days of the bucket & spade holidays are over. Stop trying to protect your own personal interests and build a modern resort - it's almost too late!

[quote][p][bold]Woodgate[/bold] wrote:
Weymouth has been blighted by a succession of WPBC councillors and officers with no commercial ability and whose only interest is in self serving and keeping the status quo. For heavens sake Council get some real world, expert help and look forward not back. Sick to death of reading about disgruntled hoteliers and someone from the Chamber of Commerce who says 'I hope they can sort something out'.......[/p][/quote]Woodgate is so right.
Just look at the track record of the Weymouth Council:-
Failure to attract conference and concert trade in the 1960/70's
Failure to attract business development
Failure to work with DCC to develop a workable road system.
Wake-up WPBC, the days of the bucket & spade holidays are over. Stop trying to protect your own personal interests and build a modern resort - it's almost too late!banknote

Woodgate wrote…

Weymouth has been blighted by a succession of WPBC councillors and officers with no commercial ability and whose only interest is in self serving and keeping the status quo. For heavens sake Council get some real world, expert help and look forward not back. Sick to death of reading about disgruntled hoteliers and someone from the Chamber of Commerce who says 'I hope they can sort something out'.......

Woodgate is so right.

Just look at the track record of the Weymouth Council:-

Failure to attract conference and concert trade in the 1960/70's

Failure to attract business development

Failure to work with DCC to develop a workable road system.

Wake-up WPBC, the days of the bucket & spade holidays are over. Stop trying to protect your own personal interests and build a modern resort - it's almost too late!

Score: 30

MrTomSmith
10:50am Fri 18 Apr 14

This is just a yesterday's article with a couple of interviews from Hoteliers and a petition. There were scores of comments yesterday with a lot of good points, and the main one was What happened to this so called 15 year contract? Echo you need to get nasty, give them some real bad publicity, they are holding us to Ransom (quite right there) but they have done it after WE, YES WE forked out 7 MILLION POUNDS for Berth 3.
You know what I would do, I would say bye bye, that's it your out.....end the month. Clear off back to Poole.

This is just a yesterday's article with a couple of interviews from Hoteliers and a petition. There were scores of comments yesterday with a lot of good points, and the main one was What happened to this so called 15 year contract? Echo you need to get nasty, give them some real bad publicity, they are holding us to Ransom (quite right there) but they have done it after WE, YES WE forked out 7 MILLION POUNDS for Berth 3.
You know what I would do, I would say bye bye, that's it your out.....end the month. Clear off back to Poole.MrTomSmith

This is just a yesterday's article with a couple of interviews from Hoteliers and a petition. There were scores of comments yesterday with a lot of good points, and the main one was What happened to this so called 15 year contract? Echo you need to get nasty, give them some real bad publicity, they are holding us to Ransom (quite right there) but they have done it after WE, YES WE forked out 7 MILLION POUNDS for Berth 3.
You know what I would do, I would say bye bye, that's it your out.....end the month. Clear off back to Poole.

Score: 6

MrTomSmith
10:53am Fri 18 Apr 14

And Guernsey isn't that nice either........and its expensive....

And Guernsey isn't that nice either........and its expensive....MrTomSmith

And Guernsey isn't that nice either........and its expensive....

Score: -9

Sally MacLennane
11:29am Fri 18 Apr 14

Petitions are pointless. This is business. Nobody from Weymouth spends money with Condor, they (rightly) don't care about what's best for Weymouth, they should care about what's best for their business.

Petitions are pointless. This is business. Nobody from Weymouth spends money with Condor, they (rightly) don't care about what's best for Weymouth, they should care about what's best for their business.Sally MacLennane

Petitions are pointless. This is business. Nobody from Weymouth spends money with Condor, they (rightly) don't care about what's best for Weymouth, they should care about what's best for their business.

Score: 20

Jimmytheone
11:47am Fri 18 Apr 14

I thought there was a good debate on this yesterday and today on another page and now we have another started on this page. Somebody get your act together or is it a question of split and divide. Forgot hoteliers involved now a bit behind must be councillors.

I thought there was a good debate on this yesterday and today on another page and now we have another started on this page. Somebody get your act together or is it a question of split and divide. Forgot hoteliers involved now a bit behind must be councillors.Jimmytheone

I thought there was a good debate on this yesterday and today on another page and now we have another started on this page. Somebody get your act together or is it a question of split and divide. Forgot hoteliers involved now a bit behind must be councillors.

Score: -1

mr commonsense
12:45pm Fri 18 Apr 14

If a ferry operator is upgrading it's fleet then a major requirement is will the port (wherever) be capable of handling the traffic generated with a larger vessel? Condor are not holding anybody to ransom, they are a commercial organisation that exists for passenger and cargo traffic and if the port is not up to handling this then they will use an alternative. This is called business.
Had Weymouth Council not wasted years of opportunity in providing venues, harbour facilities, other infrastructure this current situation would not be happening. I despair of local government dealing in all the minutiae of local issues and not getting to grips with things that can grow communities, revenue, visitors and all the things that make people proud of where they live.
I have no connection with Condor.

If a ferry operator is upgrading it's fleet then a major requirement is will the port (wherever) be capable of handling the traffic generated with a larger vessel? Condor are not holding anybody to ransom, they are a commercial organisation that exists for passenger and cargo traffic and if the port is not up to handling this then they will use an alternative. This is called business.
Had Weymouth Council not wasted years of opportunity in providing venues, harbour facilities, other infrastructure this current situation would not be happening. I despair of local government dealing in all the minutiae of local issues and not getting to grips with things that can grow communities, revenue, visitors and all the things that make people proud of where they live.
I have no connection with Condor.mr commonsense

If a ferry operator is upgrading it's fleet then a major requirement is will the port (wherever) be capable of handling the traffic generated with a larger vessel? Condor are not holding anybody to ransom, they are a commercial organisation that exists for passenger and cargo traffic and if the port is not up to handling this then they will use an alternative. This is called business.
Had Weymouth Council not wasted years of opportunity in providing venues, harbour facilities, other infrastructure this current situation would not be happening. I despair of local government dealing in all the minutiae of local issues and not getting to grips with things that can grow communities, revenue, visitors and all the things that make people proud of where they live.
I have no connection with Condor.

Score: 27

MrTomSmith
1:19pm Fri 18 Apr 14

mr commonsense wrote…

If a ferry operator is upgrading it's fleet then a major requirement is will the port (wherever) be capable of handling the traffic generated with a larger vessel? Condor are not holding anybody to ransom, they are a commercial organisation that exists for passenger and cargo traffic and if the port is not up to handling this then they will use an alternative. This is called business.
Had Weymouth Council not wasted years of opportunity in providing venues, harbour facilities, other infrastructure this current situation would not be happening. I despair of local government dealing in all the minutiae of local issues and not getting to grips with things that can grow communities, revenue, visitors and all the things that make people proud of where they live.
I have no connection with Condor.

Of course they holding the port to ransom, they are saying repair Berth 1 or we will go, yes I agree it is Business, but it is also ransom. But mr commonsense don't get too upset as I agree with everything else :-)

[quote][p][bold]mr commonsense[/bold] wrote:
If a ferry operator is upgrading it's fleet then a major requirement is will the port (wherever) be capable of handling the traffic generated with a larger vessel? Condor are not holding anybody to ransom, they are a commercial organisation that exists for passenger and cargo traffic and if the port is not up to handling this then they will use an alternative. This is called business.
Had Weymouth Council not wasted years of opportunity in providing venues, harbour facilities, other infrastructure this current situation would not be happening. I despair of local government dealing in all the minutiae of local issues and not getting to grips with things that can grow communities, revenue, visitors and all the things that make people proud of where they live.
I have no connection with Condor.[/p][/quote]Of course they holding the port to ransom, they are saying repair Berth 1 or we will go, yes I agree it is Business, but it is also ransom. But mr commonsense don't get too upset as I agree with everything else :-)MrTomSmith

mr commonsense wrote…

If a ferry operator is upgrading it's fleet then a major requirement is will the port (wherever) be capable of handling the traffic generated with a larger vessel? Condor are not holding anybody to ransom, they are a commercial organisation that exists for passenger and cargo traffic and if the port is not up to handling this then they will use an alternative. This is called business.
Had Weymouth Council not wasted years of opportunity in providing venues, harbour facilities, other infrastructure this current situation would not be happening. I despair of local government dealing in all the minutiae of local issues and not getting to grips with things that can grow communities, revenue, visitors and all the things that make people proud of where they live.
I have no connection with Condor.

Of course they holding the port to ransom, they are saying repair Berth 1 or we will go, yes I agree it is Business, but it is also ransom. But mr commonsense don't get too upset as I agree with everything else :-)

Score: -3

Dave Aitch
1:40pm Fri 18 Apr 14

Surprised Portland Port haven't offered a couple of their berths. Build a ramp or two. Sorted.

Surprised Portland Port haven't offered a couple of their berths. Build a ramp or two. Sorted.

Score: 7

Peter Gunn
1:59pm Fri 18 Apr 14

Think positive, this should make a tremendous difference to traffic congestion!

Think positive, this should make a tremendous difference to traffic congestion!Peter Gunn

Think positive, this should make a tremendous difference to traffic congestion!

Score: 9

Frank F
2:22pm Fri 18 Apr 14

I'm afraid to say it but Condor knew about all this years ago I expect. You don't just decide to buy a bigger catamaran it takes years of planning beforehand and they knew well before the berth was even sorted out at Weymouth that they planned to change their minds and want a bigger berth for a bigger catamaran. They should be billed for the work done on the berth at Weymouth as it borders on deception and it is of course public money that paid for it and our services are going to suffer because of it.
Let them go to Poole and look at using the berth for other forms of shipping they'll only screw Weymouth again in years to come.

I'm afraid to say it but Condor knew about all this years ago I expect. You don't just decide to buy a bigger catamaran it takes years of planning beforehand and they knew well before the berth was even sorted out at Weymouth that they planned to change their minds and want a bigger berth for a bigger catamaran. They should be billed for the work done on the berth at Weymouth as it borders on deception and it is of course public money that paid for it and our services are going to suffer because of it.
Let them go to Poole and look at using the berth for other forms of shipping they'll only screw Weymouth again in years to come.Frank F

I'm afraid to say it but Condor knew about all this years ago I expect. You don't just decide to buy a bigger catamaran it takes years of planning beforehand and they knew well before the berth was even sorted out at Weymouth that they planned to change their minds and want a bigger berth for a bigger catamaran. They should be billed for the work done on the berth at Weymouth as it borders on deception and it is of course public money that paid for it and our services are going to suffer because of it.
Let them go to Poole and look at using the berth for other forms of shipping they'll only screw Weymouth again in years to come.

Score: 6

Caption Sensible
2:49pm Fri 18 Apr 14

Redevelop the peninsula, using private finance, and offer first rate facilities; the operators will come.

Redevelop the peninsula, using private finance, and offer first rate facilities; the operators will come.Caption Sensible

Redevelop the peninsula, using private finance, and offer first rate facilities; the operators will come.

Score: 3

MrTomSmith
2:54pm Fri 18 Apr 14

Frank F wrote…

I'm afraid to say it but Condor knew about all this years ago I expect. You don't just decide to buy a bigger catamaran it takes years of planning beforehand and they knew well before the berth was even sorted out at Weymouth that they planned to change their minds and want a bigger berth for a bigger catamaran. They should be billed for the work done on the berth at Weymouth as it borders on deception and it is of course public money that paid for it and our services are going to suffer because of it.
Let them go to Poole and look at using the berth for other forms of shipping they'll only screw Weymouth again in years to come.

Spot on.

[quote][p][bold]Frank F[/bold] wrote:
I'm afraid to say it but Condor knew about all this years ago I expect. You don't just decide to buy a bigger catamaran it takes years of planning beforehand and they knew well before the berth was even sorted out at Weymouth that they planned to change their minds and want a bigger berth for a bigger catamaran. They should be billed for the work done on the berth at Weymouth as it borders on deception and it is of course public money that paid for it and our services are going to suffer because of it.
Let them go to Poole and look at using the berth for other forms of shipping they'll only screw Weymouth again in years to come.[/p][/quote]Spot on.MrTomSmith

Frank F wrote…

I'm afraid to say it but Condor knew about all this years ago I expect. You don't just decide to buy a bigger catamaran it takes years of planning beforehand and they knew well before the berth was even sorted out at Weymouth that they planned to change their minds and want a bigger berth for a bigger catamaran. They should be billed for the work done on the berth at Weymouth as it borders on deception and it is of course public money that paid for it and our services are going to suffer because of it.
Let them go to Poole and look at using the berth for other forms of shipping they'll only screw Weymouth again in years to come.

Spot on.

Score: 9

portlandboy
3:09pm Fri 18 Apr 14

The WPBC should not be surprised or feel that Condor is in any way holding them to ransom. The contract end date is well known and there has been little work done by the council to encourage Condor's renewal of it.

The council has treated Condor in exactly the same way that they treat the residents - like cash cows, good for squeezing every last drop out of, but giving little back in return. So what that they spent £4 on a refurb of No 3 berth? They should have kept it up to scratch all along. It would have cost less and it would have seen Condor sailing from the town without a break for the massive repairs.

The council don't offer any modern facilities for the thousands of customers who travel through the port - no decent cafe, toilets or departure/arrivals halls. The staffing is such that the security staff have to double up as dockers which is not exactly a professional picture for customers to see.

Furthermore, the linkspan at No 3 is pretty much at the end of it's useful life, having been there for many, many years without being properly maintained. The council STILL have not fully paid for that yet and are only paying the interest on the cost of it!!

Someone once said to me life is like a sewer, what you get out of it depends on what you put in to it. I can absolutely see why Condor would want to leave.

The WPBC should not be surprised or feel that Condor is in any way holding them to ransom. The contract end date is well known and there has been little work done by the council to encourage Condor's renewal of it.
The council has treated Condor in exactly the same way that they treat the residents - like cash cows, good for squeezing every last drop out of, but giving little back in return. So what that they spent £4 on a refurb of No 3 berth? They should have kept it up to scratch all along. It would have cost less and it would have seen Condor sailing from the town without a break for the massive repairs.
The council don't offer any modern facilities for the thousands of customers who travel through the port - no decent cafe, toilets or departure/arrivals halls. The staffing is such that the security staff have to double up as dockers which is not exactly a professional picture for customers to see.
Furthermore, the linkspan at No 3 is pretty much at the end of it's useful life, having been there for many, many years without being properly maintained. The council STILL have not fully paid for that yet and are only paying the interest on the cost of it!!
Someone once said to me life is like a sewer, what you get out of it depends on what you put in to it. I can absolutely see why Condor would want to leave.portlandboy

The WPBC should not be surprised or feel that Condor is in any way holding them to ransom. The contract end date is well known and there has been little work done by the council to encourage Condor's renewal of it.

The council has treated Condor in exactly the same way that they treat the residents - like cash cows, good for squeezing every last drop out of, but giving little back in return. So what that they spent £4 on a refurb of No 3 berth? They should have kept it up to scratch all along. It would have cost less and it would have seen Condor sailing from the town without a break for the massive repairs.

The council don't offer any modern facilities for the thousands of customers who travel through the port - no decent cafe, toilets or departure/arrivals halls. The staffing is such that the security staff have to double up as dockers which is not exactly a professional picture for customers to see.

Furthermore, the linkspan at No 3 is pretty much at the end of it's useful life, having been there for many, many years without being properly maintained. The council STILL have not fully paid for that yet and are only paying the interest on the cost of it!!

Someone once said to me life is like a sewer, what you get out of it depends on what you put in to it. I can absolutely see why Condor would want to leave.

Score: 12

Peterweymouth
3:10pm Fri 18 Apr 14

Well, is this news??? Stories of the new bigger Condor vessels not fitting the existing berths were around some time ago..... so why the sudden fuss??? Are the council, its officers and politicians guilty of ineptitude? They probably don’t think so, but spending £4m on repairs on Condor’s behalf without any sort of contract seems a tad naive… but it seems no one knows if one exists. If it does, and given that this information was around at the time it would have been signed was it properly negotiated on the boroughs behalf??? The harbour would doubtless have needed fixing regardless of Condor’s commitment to Weymouth, but could it have been done for less money, if it wasn’t being built up to withstand catamaran wash and to Condor’s timetable?

The seafront lasers are a peek into the mindset of the council. I worked in the events industry during the ‘80’s when entertainment lasers were being developed and cannot understand why they were installed. It’s like buying a 20 watt light bulb to illuminate Wembley stadium. It follows then, if we have a council who thinks the lasers a good idea should we have any faith they are dynamic enough to deal with this matter?

Well, is this news??? Stories of the new bigger Condor vessels not fitting the existing berths were around some time ago..... so why the sudden fuss??? Are the council, its officers and politicians guilty of ineptitude? They probably don’t think so, but spending £4m on repairs on Condor’s behalf without any sort of contract seems a tad naive… but it seems no one knows if one exists. If it does, and given that this information was around at the time it would have been signed was it properly negotiated on the boroughs behalf??? The harbour would doubtless have needed fixing regardless of Condor’s commitment to Weymouth, but could it have been done for less money, if it wasn’t being built up to withstand catamaran wash and to Condor’s timetable?
The seafront lasers are a peek into the mindset of the council. I worked in the events industry during the ‘80’s when entertainment lasers were being developed and cannot understand why they were installed. It’s like buying a 20 watt light bulb to illuminate Wembley stadium. It follows then, if we have a council who thinks the lasers a good idea should we have any faith they are dynamic enough to deal with this matter?Peterweymouth

Well, is this news??? Stories of the new bigger Condor vessels not fitting the existing berths were around some time ago..... so why the sudden fuss??? Are the council, its officers and politicians guilty of ineptitude? They probably don’t think so, but spending £4m on repairs on Condor’s behalf without any sort of contract seems a tad naive… but it seems no one knows if one exists. If it does, and given that this information was around at the time it would have been signed was it properly negotiated on the boroughs behalf??? The harbour would doubtless have needed fixing regardless of Condor’s commitment to Weymouth, but could it have been done for less money, if it wasn’t being built up to withstand catamaran wash and to Condor’s timetable?

The seafront lasers are a peek into the mindset of the council. I worked in the events industry during the ‘80’s when entertainment lasers were being developed and cannot understand why they were installed. It’s like buying a 20 watt light bulb to illuminate Wembley stadium. It follows then, if we have a council who thinks the lasers a good idea should we have any faith they are dynamic enough to deal with this matter?

Score: 17

weymouthfox
3:10pm Fri 18 Apr 14

Councillor Jeff Petherick warned other councillors about this prospect when the rebuilding of the collapsed berth was being discussed. He is one of few councillors with any sense or vision. Wasnt it Councillor Ian Roebuck who told the Echo last year that a condition of rebuilding the berth was that Condor would sign a 15 year contract to use it? I suppose the answer is that our totally useless property officers didnt get round to it and Councillor Roebuck forgot to check. What a hapless bunch of councillors and officers we have in Weymouth.

Councillor Jeff Petherick warned other councillors about this prospect when the rebuilding of the collapsed berth was being discussed. He is one of few councillors with any sense or vision. Wasnt it Councillor Ian Roebuck who told the Echo last year that a condition of rebuilding the berth was that Condor would sign a 15 year contract to use it? I suppose the answer is that our totally useless property officers didnt get round to it and Councillor Roebuck forgot to check. What a hapless bunch of councillors and officers we have in Weymouth.weymouthfox

Councillor Jeff Petherick warned other councillors about this prospect when the rebuilding of the collapsed berth was being discussed. He is one of few councillors with any sense or vision. Wasnt it Councillor Ian Roebuck who told the Echo last year that a condition of rebuilding the berth was that Condor would sign a 15 year contract to use it? I suppose the answer is that our totally useless property officers didnt get round to it and Councillor Roebuck forgot to check. What a hapless bunch of councillors and officers we have in Weymouth.

Score: 16

portlandboy
3:14pm Fri 18 Apr 14

*£4M ↑

*£4M ↑portlandboy

*£4M ↑

Score: 2

portlandboy
3:28pm Fri 18 Apr 14

Frank F wrote…

I'm afraid to say it but Condor knew about all this years ago I expect. You don't just decide to buy a bigger catamaran it takes years of planning beforehand and they knew well before the berth was even sorted out at Weymouth that they planned to change their minds and want a bigger berth for a bigger catamaran. They should be billed for the work done on the berth at Weymouth as it borders on deception and it is of course public money that paid for it and our services are going to suffer because of it.
Let them go to Poole and look at using the berth for other forms of shipping they'll only screw Weymouth again in years to come.

Whilst I agree that Condor knew that the berth would not be suitable for them in the future, you have to remember that they have ALREADY paid for the berthing that they have had. That figure was negotiated by WPBC and Condor and included an amount for the upkeep of the facility during the contract. That is why the council HAD to repair it. And it should have come out of the funds that were set aside for repairs.

The problem is not Condors, but the financial managers at the council. The same thing happened with the Pavilion. The council didn't set aside any money for repairs, nor did they actually carry out anything significant during the time they owned it, then it suddenly became too expensive to repair, so they sold it.

DCC will soon be in the same situation with our roads. Lack of repair, lack of set-aside funds and then a "surprise" repair bill with no way to pay it.

It's common business sense to set aside money for things like this. Common sense is the thing that is not a requirement when dealing with public funds.

[quote][p][bold]Frank F[/bold] wrote:
I'm afraid to say it but Condor knew about all this years ago I expect. You don't just decide to buy a bigger catamaran it takes years of planning beforehand and they knew well before the berth was even sorted out at Weymouth that they planned to change their minds and want a bigger berth for a bigger catamaran. They should be billed for the work done on the berth at Weymouth as it borders on deception and it is of course public money that paid for it and our services are going to suffer because of it.
Let them go to Poole and look at using the berth for other forms of shipping they'll only screw Weymouth again in years to come.[/p][/quote]Whilst I agree that Condor knew that the berth would not be suitable for them in the future, you have to remember that they have ALREADY paid for the berthing that they have had. That figure was negotiated by WPBC and Condor and included an amount for the upkeep of the facility during the contract. That is why the council HAD to repair it. And it should have come out of the funds that were set aside for repairs.
The problem is not Condors, but the financial managers at the council. The same thing happened with the Pavilion. The council didn't set aside any money for repairs, nor did they actually carry out anything significant during the time they owned it, then it suddenly became too expensive to repair, so they sold it.
DCC will soon be in the same situation with our roads. Lack of repair, lack of set-aside funds and then a "surprise" repair bill with no way to pay it.
It's common business sense to set aside money for things like this. Common sense is the thing that is not a requirement when dealing with public funds.portlandboy

Frank F wrote…

I'm afraid to say it but Condor knew about all this years ago I expect. You don't just decide to buy a bigger catamaran it takes years of planning beforehand and they knew well before the berth was even sorted out at Weymouth that they planned to change their minds and want a bigger berth for a bigger catamaran. They should be billed for the work done on the berth at Weymouth as it borders on deception and it is of course public money that paid for it and our services are going to suffer because of it.
Let them go to Poole and look at using the berth for other forms of shipping they'll only screw Weymouth again in years to come.

Whilst I agree that Condor knew that the berth would not be suitable for them in the future, you have to remember that they have ALREADY paid for the berthing that they have had. That figure was negotiated by WPBC and Condor and included an amount for the upkeep of the facility during the contract. That is why the council HAD to repair it. And it should have come out of the funds that were set aside for repairs.

The problem is not Condors, but the financial managers at the council. The same thing happened with the Pavilion. The council didn't set aside any money for repairs, nor did they actually carry out anything significant during the time they owned it, then it suddenly became too expensive to repair, so they sold it.

DCC will soon be in the same situation with our roads. Lack of repair, lack of set-aside funds and then a "surprise" repair bill with no way to pay it.

It's common business sense to set aside money for things like this. Common sense is the thing that is not a requirement when dealing with public funds.

Score: 13

ScousePaul
3:38pm Fri 18 Apr 14

I am saddened, but not surprised at the possible relocation of Condor.
Private finance initiatives (PFI) are all well and good, but do you remember when Gordon Brown built new NHS trust hospitals? they are now saddled with massive debts!
Having walked along the Pleasure Pier last week, it broke my heart to see the lack of investment and general state of the area.
No public toilets, no cafe, no seats! Nothing........
Shame on every councillor over the last 30 years who (collectively) have allowed this to happen.
Would the borough be better off speaking to a rival ferry operator and call Condors bluff as Weymouth is perfectly situated between Plymouth and Portsmouth?
I await a response from any councillor to explain the situation, in detail, publicly and with no confidentiality clauses......

I am saddened, but not surprised at the possible relocation of Condor.
Private finance initiatives (PFI) are all well and good, but do you remember when Gordon Brown built new NHS trust hospitals? they are now saddled with massive debts!
Having walked along the Pleasure Pier last week, it broke my heart to see the lack of investment and general state of the area.
No public toilets, no cafe, no seats! Nothing........
Shame on every councillor over the last 30 years who (collectively) have allowed this to happen.
Would the borough be better off speaking to a rival ferry operator and call Condors bluff as Weymouth is perfectly situated between Plymouth and Portsmouth?
I await a response from any councillor to explain the situation, in detail, publicly and with no confidentiality clauses......ScousePaul

I am saddened, but not surprised at the possible relocation of Condor.
Private finance initiatives (PFI) are all well and good, but do you remember when Gordon Brown built new NHS trust hospitals? they are now saddled with massive debts!
Having walked along the Pleasure Pier last week, it broke my heart to see the lack of investment and general state of the area.
No public toilets, no cafe, no seats! Nothing........
Shame on every councillor over the last 30 years who (collectively) have allowed this to happen.
Would the borough be better off speaking to a rival ferry operator and call Condors bluff as Weymouth is perfectly situated between Plymouth and Portsmouth?
I await a response from any councillor to explain the situation, in detail, publicly and with no confidentiality clauses......

Score: 17

opera lover
4:47pm Fri 18 Apr 14

Had the Council not spent years diverting funds they raised from the Harbour propping up the Pavilion and Chalets(2 examples) that only a small minority use then the profits from the Harbour fees could have been re invested where they were actually some use and not propping up fading assets kept for political reasons. Now all that they can do that seems sensible is sell the lot off.

Councils have no business nowadays running harbours, flog off the Penisula pull down that rusting hulk of a Theatre and in it's place a newer easier to maintain smaller performance space. The rest could be mixed residential business use,I think someone suggested a water slide park or something, and the Ferry Berths could stay, there's plenty of room.

If this town had not been so bloody backward thinking 10 years ago when this offer was on the table then this would not be happening, the town would have a newer better theatre and a Beach Front area to be proud of. Instead Councillors, frightened of being voted out because a small vocal minority objected loudly, stalled so long the holding company lost patience and allowed Howard Holdings to go bust.

Had the Council not spent years diverting funds they raised from the Harbour propping up the Pavilion and Chalets(2 examples) that only a small minority use then the profits from the Harbour fees could have been re invested where they were actually some use and not propping up fading assets kept for political reasons. Now all that they can do that seems sensible is sell the lot off.
Councils have no business nowadays running harbours, flog off the Penisula pull down that rusting hulk of a Theatre and in it's place a newer easier to maintain smaller performance space. The rest could be mixed residential business use,I think someone suggested a water slide park or something, and the Ferry Berths could stay, there's plenty of room.
If this town had not been so bloody backward thinking 10 years ago when this offer was on the table then this would not be happening, the town would have a newer better theatre and a Beach Front area to be proud of. Instead Councillors, frightened of being voted out because a small vocal minority objected loudly, stalled so long the holding company lost patience and allowed Howard Holdings to go bust.opera lover

Had the Council not spent years diverting funds they raised from the Harbour propping up the Pavilion and Chalets(2 examples) that only a small minority use then the profits from the Harbour fees could have been re invested where they were actually some use and not propping up fading assets kept for political reasons. Now all that they can do that seems sensible is sell the lot off.

Councils have no business nowadays running harbours, flog off the Penisula pull down that rusting hulk of a Theatre and in it's place a newer easier to maintain smaller performance space. The rest could be mixed residential business use,I think someone suggested a water slide park or something, and the Ferry Berths could stay, there's plenty of room.

If this town had not been so bloody backward thinking 10 years ago when this offer was on the table then this would not be happening, the town would have a newer better theatre and a Beach Front area to be proud of. Instead Councillors, frightened of being voted out because a small vocal minority objected loudly, stalled so long the holding company lost patience and allowed Howard Holdings to go bust.

Score: 1

oldbrock
5:43pm Fri 18 Apr 14

Woodgate wrote…

Weymouth has been blighted by a succession of WPBC councillors and officers with no commercial ability and whose only interest is in self serving and keeping the status quo. For heavens sake Council get some real world, expert help and look forward not back. Sick to death of reading about disgruntled hoteliers and someone from the Chamber of Commerce who says 'I hope they can sort something out'.......

from the local papers I buy when visiting and reading here it seems that your post is quite correct, from experience of councillors up here, it seems the desire to get on the council and maintain the position with attendant expenses etc does not equate with many individuals abilities to accept the responsibilities they take on for the people of WEYMOUTH or whichever town they represent, the ROBERT MORLEY character in the film "CROMWELL" states that there is no point being in Parliament if they cannot gain personal advantage ,I am sure in a percentage of cases it applies to councillors too, to be a councillor is potentially, today, a position of very great responsibility, no longer are the rates a payment encompassing a group of services as of old, you pay a Council Tax, if you have an infestation, you have to pay private firms to remove etc. The Council Tax can be a goodly proportion of your income, you come to expect better of your council than they tend to think they need to be..................
....

[quote][p][bold]Woodgate[/bold] wrote:
Weymouth has been blighted by a succession of WPBC councillors and officers with no commercial ability and whose only interest is in self serving and keeping the status quo. For heavens sake Council get some real world, expert help and look forward not back. Sick to death of reading about disgruntled hoteliers and someone from the Chamber of Commerce who says 'I hope they can sort something out'.......[/p][/quote]from the local papers I buy when visiting and reading here it seems that your post is quite correct, from experience of councillors up here, it seems the desire to get on the council and maintain the position with attendant expenses etc does not equate with many individuals abilities to accept the responsibilities they take on for the people of WEYMOUTH or whichever town they represent, the ROBERT MORLEY character in the film "CROMWELL" states that there is no point being in Parliament if they cannot gain personal advantage ,I am sure in a percentage of cases it applies to councillors too, to be a councillor is potentially, today, a position of very great responsibility, no longer are the rates a payment encompassing a group of services as of old, you pay a Council Tax, if you have an infestation, you have to pay private firms to remove etc. The Council Tax can be a goodly proportion of your income, you come to expect better of your council than they tend to think they need to be..................
....oldbrock

Woodgate wrote…

Weymouth has been blighted by a succession of WPBC councillors and officers with no commercial ability and whose only interest is in self serving and keeping the status quo. For heavens sake Council get some real world, expert help and look forward not back. Sick to death of reading about disgruntled hoteliers and someone from the Chamber of Commerce who says 'I hope they can sort something out'.......

from the local papers I buy when visiting and reading here it seems that your post is quite correct, from experience of councillors up here, it seems the desire to get on the council and maintain the position with attendant expenses etc does not equate with many individuals abilities to accept the responsibilities they take on for the people of WEYMOUTH or whichever town they represent, the ROBERT MORLEY character in the film "CROMWELL" states that there is no point being in Parliament if they cannot gain personal advantage ,I am sure in a percentage of cases it applies to councillors too, to be a councillor is potentially, today, a position of very great responsibility, no longer are the rates a payment encompassing a group of services as of old, you pay a Council Tax, if you have an infestation, you have to pay private firms to remove etc. The Council Tax can be a goodly proportion of your income, you come to expect better of your council than they tend to think they need to be..................
....

Score: 8

radiator
7:25pm Fri 18 Apr 14

I have said it before and I will say it again,instead of wasting millions on the traffic system in Weymouth they should have pushed for the Western route for I am sure Portland could easily accommodate the ferry at Portland Port.
By having the terminal there it would ease the traffic in Weymouth and also if the Western route was in existence bring more trade to the area which in turn create more jobs.

I have said it before and I will say it again,instead of wasting millions on the traffic system in Weymouth they should have pushed for the Western route for I am sure Portland could easily accommodate the ferry at Portland Port.
By having the terminal there it would ease the traffic in Weymouth and also if the Western route was in existence bring more trade to the area which in turn create more jobs.radiator

I have said it before and I will say it again,instead of wasting millions on the traffic system in Weymouth they should have pushed for the Western route for I am sure Portland could easily accommodate the ferry at Portland Port.
By having the terminal there it would ease the traffic in Weymouth and also if the Western route was in existence bring more trade to the area which in turn create more jobs.

Score: 15

Wolf Lady
7:31pm Fri 18 Apr 14

This council is inept and incapable of looking forward! They and Condor must have known that a bigger vessel was in the pipeline. Condor should have been up front and said that a new vessel was planned and to fix up Berth 1 instead of Berth 3. Why can't Condor put a chunk of cash into refurbishing the Berth? Why can the bigger vessel not go to Portland Port? Why can't W&P and DCC not look at the terms of the condor contract? if it was/is for 15 years hold them to it! If Condor wants to stay in Weymouth/Portland (and the town needs them) make them sign and stick to a contract that serves Condor, the council, AND the residents of Weymouth and Portland.

So far the near sighted and inept financial advisors at W&P have installed laser lights that are rubbish, stopped visitors arriving for the olympics due to 'Congestion' put in stupid and dangerous traffic lights instead of roundabouts. Come on council stop wasting money and do as your constituents ask!!!!!!!

This council is inept and incapable of looking forward! They and Condor must have known that a bigger vessel was in the pipeline. Condor should have been up front and said that a new vessel was planned and to fix up Berth 1 instead of Berth 3. Why can't Condor put a chunk of cash into refurbishing the Berth? Why can the bigger vessel not go to Portland Port? Why can't W&P and DCC not look at the terms of the condor contract? if it was/is for 15 years hold them to it! If Condor wants to stay in Weymouth/Portland (and the town needs them) make them sign and stick to a contract that serves Condor, the council, AND the residents of Weymouth and Portland.
So far the near sighted and inept financial advisors at W&P have installed laser lights that are rubbish, stopped visitors arriving for the olympics due to 'Congestion' put in stupid and dangerous traffic lights instead of roundabouts. Come on council stop wasting money and do as your constituents ask!!!!!!!Wolf Lady

This council is inept and incapable of looking forward! They and Condor must have known that a bigger vessel was in the pipeline. Condor should have been up front and said that a new vessel was planned and to fix up Berth 1 instead of Berth 3. Why can't Condor put a chunk of cash into refurbishing the Berth? Why can the bigger vessel not go to Portland Port? Why can't W&P and DCC not look at the terms of the condor contract? if it was/is for 15 years hold them to it! If Condor wants to stay in Weymouth/Portland (and the town needs them) make them sign and stick to a contract that serves Condor, the council, AND the residents of Weymouth and Portland.

So far the near sighted and inept financial advisors at W&P have installed laser lights that are rubbish, stopped visitors arriving for the olympics due to 'Congestion' put in stupid and dangerous traffic lights instead of roundabouts. Come on council stop wasting money and do as your constituents ask!!!!!!!

Score: 9

iansedwell
8:22pm Fri 18 Apr 14

Councillor Peter Farrell has been completely vindicated. He long campaigned for W&PBC to spend income from the harbour on the maintenance of the harbour. He was constantly over-ruled and undermined.

Once again the incompetence and stupidity that is W&PBC is held out for all to see. If the berths had been properly maintained over the years, we would not be in this position. Condor would be staying at Weymouth.

W&PBC either operate and maintain their harbour as it should be run and maintained, or they should sell it to an organisation that has the competence to do so.

Councillor Peter Farrell has been completely vindicated. He long campaigned for W&PBC to spend income from the harbour on the maintenance of the harbour. He was constantly over-ruled and undermined.
Once again the incompetence and stupidity that is W&PBC is held out for all to see. If the berths had been properly maintained over the years, we would not be in this position. Condor would be staying at Weymouth.
W&PBC either operate and maintain their harbour as it should be run and maintained, or they should sell it to an organisation that has the competence to do so.iansedwell

Councillor Peter Farrell has been completely vindicated. He long campaigned for W&PBC to spend income from the harbour on the maintenance of the harbour. He was constantly over-ruled and undermined.

Once again the incompetence and stupidity that is W&PBC is held out for all to see. If the berths had been properly maintained over the years, we would not be in this position. Condor would be staying at Weymouth.

W&PBC either operate and maintain their harbour as it should be run and maintained, or they should sell it to an organisation that has the competence to do so.

Score: 13

Jimmytheone
8:36pm Fri 18 Apr 14

Can somebody please respond.
1. Was there or is there a signed 15 year legal contract in place Yes or No
2. How long has this confidential document which Mr Bruce revealed been hidden ?
3 Condor have paid a deposit on the new boat so it is coming fact how long has this fact been know by the relevant councillors.

Without political one upmanship which will come into it can somebody without waffle please answer the above Three questions.

Can somebody please respond.
1. Was there or is there a signed 15 year legal contract in place Yes or No
2. How long has this confidential document which Mr Bruce revealed been hidden ?
3 Condor have paid a deposit on the new boat so it is coming fact how long has this fact been know by the relevant councillors.
Without political one upmanship which will come into it can somebody without waffle please answer the above Three questions.Jimmytheone

Can somebody please respond.
1. Was there or is there a signed 15 year legal contract in place Yes or No
2. How long has this confidential document which Mr Bruce revealed been hidden ?
3 Condor have paid a deposit on the new boat so it is coming fact how long has this fact been know by the relevant councillors.

Without political one upmanship which will come into it can somebody without waffle please answer the above Three questions.

Score: 11

ScousePaul
8:52pm Fri 18 Apr 14

I agree, counsellor Farrell has been consistent with his efforts to secure the long term future for our Harbourside. I appreciate he has not been a lone voice over the years however more of a minority voice. I, for one, applaud his efforts. You only have to see how many of the seafront hotels are up for sale and the extortionate rates they and small businesses in the town have to pay to realise something is not working at Local council level. Local people pay a lot, and what do they get in return?
The parking concessions are a start, however the big splash in the new Resort guide is confusing to say the least. you can park all day at the Pavilion for £6, then it says maximum stay 3 hours? Where I come from, that is not all day!!

I agree, counsellor Farrell has been consistent with his efforts to secure the long term future for our Harbourside. I appreciate he has not been a lone voice over the years however more of a minority voice. I, for one, applaud his efforts. You only have to see how many of the seafront hotels are up for sale and the extortionate rates they and small businesses in the town have to pay to realise something is not working at Local council level. Local people pay a lot, and what do they get in return?
The parking concessions are a start, however the big splash in the new Resort guide is confusing to say the least. you can park all day at the Pavilion for £6, then it says maximum stay 3 hours? Where I come from, that is not all day!!ScousePaul

I agree, counsellor Farrell has been consistent with his efforts to secure the long term future for our Harbourside. I appreciate he has not been a lone voice over the years however more of a minority voice. I, for one, applaud his efforts. You only have to see how many of the seafront hotels are up for sale and the extortionate rates they and small businesses in the town have to pay to realise something is not working at Local council level. Local people pay a lot, and what do they get in return?
The parking concessions are a start, however the big splash in the new Resort guide is confusing to say the least. you can park all day at the Pavilion for £6, then it says maximum stay 3 hours? Where I come from, that is not all day!!

Score: 6

arlbergbahn
9:03pm Fri 18 Apr 14

MrTomSmith wrote…

And Guernsey isn't that nice either........and its expensive....

Are you the same one who posted rant after interminable rant about how the Channel islands were havens for fraudsters and pedophiles and collaborated with the Nazis in the other story?

[quote][p][bold]MrTomSmith[/bold] wrote:
And Guernsey isn't that nice either........and its expensive....[/p][/quote]Are you the same one who posted rant after interminable rant about how the Channel islands were havens for fraudsters and pedophiles and collaborated with the Nazis in the other story?arlbergbahn

MrTomSmith wrote…

And Guernsey isn't that nice either........and its expensive....

Are you the same one who posted rant after interminable rant about how the Channel islands were havens for fraudsters and pedophiles and collaborated with the Nazis in the other story?

Score: 2

MrTomSmith
9:17pm Fri 18 Apr 14

arlbergbahn wrote…

MrTomSmith wrote…

And Guernsey isn't that nice either........and its expensive....

Are you the same one who posted rant after interminable rant about how the Channel islands were havens for fraudsters and pedophiles and collaborated with the Nazis in the other story?

No, if you like Guernsey, say so, but thanks for giving me the chance to say it again, its expensive.

[quote][p][bold]arlbergbahn[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]MrTomSmith[/bold] wrote:
And Guernsey isn't that nice either........and its expensive....[/p][/quote]Are you the same one who posted rant after interminable rant about how the Channel islands were havens for fraudsters and pedophiles and collaborated with the Nazis in the other story?[/p][/quote]No, if you like Guernsey, say so, but thanks for giving me the chance to say it again, its expensive.MrTomSmith

arlbergbahn wrote…

MrTomSmith wrote…

And Guernsey isn't that nice either........and its expensive....

Are you the same one who posted rant after interminable rant about how the Channel islands were havens for fraudsters and pedophiles and collaborated with the Nazis in the other story?

No, if you like Guernsey, say so, but thanks for giving me the chance to say it again, its expensive.

Score: 0

dogloverdorset
10:57pm Fri 18 Apr 14

If our inept council had actually bothered to inspect and maintain the harbour wall it wouldn't have had to spend £4m... which incidentally was not just for condors benefit, but too shore up the harbour, and the council should have been setting aside reserves for such things, but prefers to squander money on annual elections and chauffeurs, the sooner we go unitary the better

If our inept council had actually bothered to inspect and maintain the harbour wall it wouldn't have had to spend £4m... which incidentally was not just for condors benefit, but too shore up the harbour, and the council should have been setting aside reserves for such things, but prefers to squander money on annual elections and chauffeurs, the sooner we go unitary the betterdogloverdorset

If our inept council had actually bothered to inspect and maintain the harbour wall it wouldn't have had to spend £4m... which incidentally was not just for condors benefit, but too shore up the harbour, and the council should have been setting aside reserves for such things, but prefers to squander money on annual elections and chauffeurs, the sooner we go unitary the better

Score: 5

FightForTheRight
12:48am Sat 19 Apr 14

Condor spoke about this bigger ferry years back, it was also mentioned when the berth was being repaired.
W&PBC should be made responsable for this and not use the excuse that Condor are to blame, or maybe using it as ransom.
This has been a long time coming and if the W&PBC were too blind to see it then it is time for change and that includes the Lord Mayor. A vote of No Confidance would, im sure, put a boot up the back sides of those in the council that are linked to this whole fiasco.
And as previously mentioned, in another posting, the council should NOT have anything to do with the Harbour and how it is run, they stick their unwanted noses in enough peoples businesses where its not needed.
If the Condor goes then a private developer needs to step and turn that area of the harbour into a tourist development, bring the town up to date and then get rid of those bloody lasers, what a mess !!

Condor spoke about this bigger ferry years back, it was also mentioned when the berth was being repaired.
W&PBC should be made responsable for this and not use the excuse that Condor are to blame, or maybe using it as ransom.
This has been a long time coming and if the W&PBC were too blind to see it then it is time for change and that includes the Lord Mayor. A vote of No Confidance would, im sure, put a boot up the back sides of those in the council that are linked to this whole fiasco.
And as previously mentioned, in another posting, the council should NOT have anything to do with the Harbour and how it is run, they stick their unwanted noses in enough peoples businesses where its not needed.
If the Condor goes then a private developer needs to step and turn that area of the harbour into a tourist development, bring the town up to date and then get rid of those bloody lasers, what a mess !!FightForTheRight

Condor spoke about this bigger ferry years back, it was also mentioned when the berth was being repaired.
W&PBC should be made responsable for this and not use the excuse that Condor are to blame, or maybe using it as ransom.
This has been a long time coming and if the W&PBC were too blind to see it then it is time for change and that includes the Lord Mayor. A vote of No Confidance would, im sure, put a boot up the back sides of those in the council that are linked to this whole fiasco.
And as previously mentioned, in another posting, the council should NOT have anything to do with the Harbour and how it is run, they stick their unwanted noses in enough peoples businesses where its not needed.
If the Condor goes then a private developer needs to step and turn that area of the harbour into a tourist development, bring the town up to date and then get rid of those bloody lasers, what a mess !!

Score: 7

ThomasFairfax
6:49am Sat 19 Apr 14

Why should the latest chapter in the Condor Ferries/Weymouth story cause so much surprise and agitation?
I have been predicting a scenario such as this since before the Condor Ferry operation was forced to relocate to Poole, prior to the 2012 Olympics, and the repairs to ferry terminal three at Weymouth during the same year. Since 2012, numerous blog entries have commented on the fact that Weymouth and Portland Borough Council’s handling of the relationship with Condor Ferries, the Weymouth Harbour repairs and ferry arrangements during the work programme have been a catalogue of ineptitude and incompetence, not to mention the disastrous handling of the Olympics themselves. No matter how far this incompetent council drive their head into the sand, the evidence is compelling.
Now this latest “bombshell” leaps from behind the tree and causes panic.
As recently as October of last year, I wrote in this blog under “New Condor ships may be too big for Weymouth Pier three”, that “However, the rebuilt Ferry berth 3 at the Weymouth Ferry terminal, is apparently not big enough to take larger ships. It seems that the planners did not see that problem coming. It this is in fact the case, then Poole may be the only port (other than Portsmouth for the traditional ferry) for arrival or departure from the Channel Islands.”
It is very easy to resort to the “I told you so” cliché, but mine was not the only siren voice raised to warn the Council that they were on the wrong track and heading for disaster.
The prospects of finding a solution to this problem seem, at this time to be remote but hopefully for the town and the people employed by Condor a solution will be forthcoming.

Further reading may be found at: http://new-agenda201
2.blogspot.co.uk/

Why should the latest chapter in the Condor Ferries/Weymouth story cause so much surprise and agitation?
I have been predicting a scenario such as this since before the Condor Ferry operation was forced to relocate to Poole, prior to the 2012 Olympics, and the repairs to ferry terminal three at Weymouth during the same year. Since 2012, numerous blog entries have commented on the fact that Weymouth and Portland Borough Council’s handling of the relationship with Condor Ferries, the Weymouth Harbour repairs and ferry arrangements during the work programme have been a catalogue of ineptitude and incompetence, not to mention the disastrous handling of the Olympics themselves. No matter how far this incompetent council drive their head into the sand, the evidence is compelling.
Now this latest “bombshell” leaps from behind the tree and causes panic.
As recently as October of last year, I wrote in this blog under “New Condor ships may be too big for Weymouth Pier three”, that “However, the rebuilt Ferry berth 3 at the Weymouth Ferry terminal, is apparently not big enough to take larger ships. It seems that the planners did not see that problem coming. It this is in fact the case, then Poole may be the only port (other than Portsmouth for the traditional ferry) for arrival or departure from the Channel Islands.”
It is very easy to resort to the “I told you so” cliché, but mine was not the only siren voice raised to warn the Council that they were on the wrong track and heading for disaster.
The prospects of finding a solution to this problem seem, at this time to be remote but hopefully for the town and the people employed by Condor a solution will be forthcoming.
Further reading may be found at: http://new-agenda201
2.blogspot.co.uk/ThomasFairfax

Why should the latest chapter in the Condor Ferries/Weymouth story cause so much surprise and agitation?
I have been predicting a scenario such as this since before the Condor Ferry operation was forced to relocate to Poole, prior to the 2012 Olympics, and the repairs to ferry terminal three at Weymouth during the same year. Since 2012, numerous blog entries have commented on the fact that Weymouth and Portland Borough Council’s handling of the relationship with Condor Ferries, the Weymouth Harbour repairs and ferry arrangements during the work programme have been a catalogue of ineptitude and incompetence, not to mention the disastrous handling of the Olympics themselves. No matter how far this incompetent council drive their head into the sand, the evidence is compelling.
Now this latest “bombshell” leaps from behind the tree and causes panic.
As recently as October of last year, I wrote in this blog under “New Condor ships may be too big for Weymouth Pier three”, that “However, the rebuilt Ferry berth 3 at the Weymouth Ferry terminal, is apparently not big enough to take larger ships. It seems that the planners did not see that problem coming. It this is in fact the case, then Poole may be the only port (other than Portsmouth for the traditional ferry) for arrival or departure from the Channel Islands.”
It is very easy to resort to the “I told you so” cliché, but mine was not the only siren voice raised to warn the Council that they were on the wrong track and heading for disaster.
The prospects of finding a solution to this problem seem, at this time to be remote but hopefully for the town and the people employed by Condor a solution will be forthcoming.

Further reading may be found at: http://new-agenda201
2.blogspot.co.uk/

Score: 4

ThomasFairfax
6:59am Sat 19 Apr 14

The writing has been on the wall for almost 3 years, but nobody chose to read it.

The writing has been on the wall for almost 3 years, but nobody chose to read it.ThomasFairfax

The writing has been on the wall for almost 3 years, but nobody chose to read it.

Score: 3

JamesYoung
7:16am Sat 19 Apr 14

Jimmytheone wrote…

Can somebody please respond.
1. Was there or is there a signed 15 year legal contract in place Yes or No
2. How long has this confidential document which Mr Bruce revealed been hidden ?
3 Condor have paid a deposit on the new boat so it is coming fact how long has this fact been know by the relevant councillors.

Without political one upmanship which will come into it can somebody without waffle please answer the above Three questions.

I think there is a fourth question around the Harbour wall problems and that is whether or not there was a contract in place between Condor and WPBC at that time. I cannot believe for one minute that there was not. It would be interesting what that contract said about the damage to the walls and who would be responsible for it.
It has always struck me as strange that a commercial company like Condor did not sue for breach of contract, since a facility that they were (presumably) paying for was not available. If it is true that the run up times in Poole Harbour cost them extra fuel, then they would also have suffered a financial loss.
If is true that WPBC were responsible for maintenance AND Condor suffered a financial loss and they still did not sue, then it casts a rather different light on their "blackmail" of WPBC, doesn't it?

[quote][p][bold]Jimmytheone[/bold] wrote:
Can somebody please respond.
1. Was there or is there a signed 15 year legal contract in place Yes or No
2. How long has this confidential document which Mr Bruce revealed been hidden ?
3 Condor have paid a deposit on the new boat so it is coming fact how long has this fact been know by the relevant councillors.
Without political one upmanship which will come into it can somebody without waffle please answer the above Three questions.[/p][/quote]I think there is a fourth question around the Harbour wall problems and that is whether or not there was a contract in place between Condor and WPBC at that time. I cannot believe for one minute that there was not. It would be interesting what that contract said about the damage to the walls and who would be responsible for it.
It has always struck me as strange that a commercial company like Condor did not sue for breach of contract, since a facility that they were (presumably) paying for was not available. If it is true that the run up times in Poole Harbour cost them extra fuel, then they would also have suffered a financial loss.
If is true that WPBC were responsible for maintenance AND Condor suffered a financial loss and they still did not sue, then it casts a rather different light on their "blackmail" of WPBC, doesn't it?JamesYoung

Jimmytheone wrote…

Can somebody please respond.
1. Was there or is there a signed 15 year legal contract in place Yes or No
2. How long has this confidential document which Mr Bruce revealed been hidden ?
3 Condor have paid a deposit on the new boat so it is coming fact how long has this fact been know by the relevant councillors.

Without political one upmanship which will come into it can somebody without waffle please answer the above Three questions.

I think there is a fourth question around the Harbour wall problems and that is whether or not there was a contract in place between Condor and WPBC at that time. I cannot believe for one minute that there was not. It would be interesting what that contract said about the damage to the walls and who would be responsible for it.
It has always struck me as strange that a commercial company like Condor did not sue for breach of contract, since a facility that they were (presumably) paying for was not available. If it is true that the run up times in Poole Harbour cost them extra fuel, then they would also have suffered a financial loss.
If is true that WPBC were responsible for maintenance AND Condor suffered a financial loss and they still did not sue, then it casts a rather different light on their "blackmail" of WPBC, doesn't it?

Score: 6

arlbergbahn
8:08am Sat 19 Apr 14

So basically, as usual, it's all the Council's fault as usual, and the ferry company saying "you spent 4 mill for our benefit last year, now we'd like you to spend another 10 mill purely for our benefit, which isn't even necessary anyway because it'd be perfectly possible for this new ferry to use the existing facility", that's fine and perfectly justified because as we know Weymouth & Portland Borough Council are a bunch of muppets, so they're naturally always to blame for everything, even attempts at extortion by monopolistic private companies? So extortion is fine when a bunch of muppets are the ones being extorted?

So basically, as usual, it's all the Council's fault as usual, and the ferry company saying "you spent 4 mill for our benefit last year, now we'd like you to spend another 10 mill purely for our benefit, which isn't even necessary anyway because it'd be perfectly possible for this new ferry to use the existing facility", that's fine and perfectly justified because as we know Weymouth & Portland Borough Council are a bunch of muppets, so they're naturally always to blame for everything, even attempts at extortion by monopolistic private companies? So extortion is fine when a bunch of muppets are the ones being extorted?arlbergbahn

So basically, as usual, it's all the Council's fault as usual, and the ferry company saying "you spent 4 mill for our benefit last year, now we'd like you to spend another 10 mill purely for our benefit, which isn't even necessary anyway because it'd be perfectly possible for this new ferry to use the existing facility", that's fine and perfectly justified because as we know Weymouth & Portland Borough Council are a bunch of muppets, so they're naturally always to blame for everything, even attempts at extortion by monopolistic private companies? So extortion is fine when a bunch of muppets are the ones being extorted?

Score: 3

MrTomSmith
8:08am Sat 19 Apr 14

JamesYoung wrote…

Jimmytheone wrote…

Can somebody please respond.
1. Was there or is there a signed 15 year legal contract in place Yes or No
2. How long has this confidential document which Mr Bruce revealed been hidden ?
3 Condor have paid a deposit on the new boat so it is coming fact how long has this fact been know by the relevant councillors.

Without political one upmanship which will come into it can somebody without waffle please answer the above Three questions.

I think there is a fourth question around the Harbour wall problems and that is whether or not there was a contract in place between Condor and WPBC at that time. I cannot believe for one minute that there was not. It would be interesting what that contract said about the damage to the walls and who would be responsible for it.
It has always struck me as strange that a commercial company like Condor did not sue for breach of contract, since a facility that they were (presumably) paying for was not available. If it is true that the run up times in Poole Harbour cost them extra fuel, then they would also have suffered a financial loss.
If is true that WPBC were responsible for maintenance AND Condor suffered a financial loss and they still did not sue, then it casts a rather different light on their "blackmail" of WPBC, doesn't it?

I have to admit, it is strange that Condor accepted the fact that the wall needed repair trotted off to Poole and came back again without (seemingly) any real fuss. And agree the facts appearing now certainly do point the blame at the Council. It would also seem that everyone knew about the larger boat would not fit into Berth 3, and so makes it very hard to believe that the council did not know.
So we need the truth from WPBC don't we.

[quote][p][bold]JamesYoung[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]Jimmytheone[/bold] wrote:
Can somebody please respond.
1. Was there or is there a signed 15 year legal contract in place Yes or No
2. How long has this confidential document which Mr Bruce revealed been hidden ?
3 Condor have paid a deposit on the new boat so it is coming fact how long has this fact been know by the relevant councillors.
Without political one upmanship which will come into it can somebody without waffle please answer the above Three questions.[/p][/quote]I think there is a fourth question around the Harbour wall problems and that is whether or not there was a contract in place between Condor and WPBC at that time. I cannot believe for one minute that there was not. It would be interesting what that contract said about the damage to the walls and who would be responsible for it.
It has always struck me as strange that a commercial company like Condor did not sue for breach of contract, since a facility that they were (presumably) paying for was not available. If it is true that the run up times in Poole Harbour cost them extra fuel, then they would also have suffered a financial loss.
If is true that WPBC were responsible for maintenance AND Condor suffered a financial loss and they still did not sue, then it casts a rather different light on their "blackmail" of WPBC, doesn't it?[/p][/quote]I have to admit, it is strange that Condor accepted the fact that the wall needed repair trotted off to Poole and came back again without (seemingly) any real fuss. And agree the facts appearing now certainly do point the blame at the Council. It would also seem that everyone knew about the larger boat would not fit into Berth 3, and so makes it very hard to believe that the council did not know.
So we need the truth from WPBC don't we.MrTomSmith

JamesYoung wrote…

Jimmytheone wrote…

Can somebody please respond.
1. Was there or is there a signed 15 year legal contract in place Yes or No
2. How long has this confidential document which Mr Bruce revealed been hidden ?
3 Condor have paid a deposit on the new boat so it is coming fact how long has this fact been know by the relevant councillors.

Without political one upmanship which will come into it can somebody without waffle please answer the above Three questions.

I think there is a fourth question around the Harbour wall problems and that is whether or not there was a contract in place between Condor and WPBC at that time. I cannot believe for one minute that there was not. It would be interesting what that contract said about the damage to the walls and who would be responsible for it.
It has always struck me as strange that a commercial company like Condor did not sue for breach of contract, since a facility that they were (presumably) paying for was not available. If it is true that the run up times in Poole Harbour cost them extra fuel, then they would also have suffered a financial loss.
If is true that WPBC were responsible for maintenance AND Condor suffered a financial loss and they still did not sue, then it casts a rather different light on their "blackmail" of WPBC, doesn't it?

I have to admit, it is strange that Condor accepted the fact that the wall needed repair trotted off to Poole and came back again without (seemingly) any real fuss. And agree the facts appearing now certainly do point the blame at the Council. It would also seem that everyone knew about the larger boat would not fit into Berth 3, and so makes it very hard to believe that the council did not know.
So we need the truth from WPBC don't we.

Score: 9

arlbergbahn
8:15am Sat 19 Apr 14

MrTomSmith wrote…

JamesYoung wrote…

Jimmytheone wrote…

Can somebody please respond.
1. Was there or is there a signed 15 year legal contract in place Yes or No
2. How long has this confidential document which Mr Bruce revealed been hidden ?
3 Condor have paid a deposit on the new boat so it is coming fact how long has this fact been know by the relevant councillors.

Without political one upmanship which will come into it can somebody without waffle please answer the above Three questions.

I think there is a fourth question around the Harbour wall problems and that is whether or not there was a contract in place between Condor and WPBC at that time. I cannot believe for one minute that there was not. It would be interesting what that contract said about the damage to the walls and who would be responsible for it.
It has always struck me as strange that a commercial company like Condor did not sue for breach of contract, since a facility that they were (presumably) paying for was not available. If it is true that the run up times in Poole Harbour cost them extra fuel, then they would also have suffered a financial loss.
If is true that WPBC were responsible for maintenance AND Condor suffered a financial loss and they still did not sue, then it casts a rather different light on their "blackmail" of WPBC, doesn't it?

I have to admit, it is strange that Condor accepted the fact that the wall needed repair trotted off to Poole and came back again without (seemingly) any real fuss. And agree the facts appearing now certainly do point the blame at the Council. It would also seem that everyone knew about the larger boat would not fit into Berth 3, and so makes it very hard to believe that the council did not know.
So we need the truth from WPBC don't we.

"It would also seem that everyone knew about the larger boat would not fit into Berth 3, and so makes it very hard to believe that the council did not know."
Does everyone know that? Is it in fact true? Is it an excuse used by ferry company Condor for extortion?
Does anyone remember when, briefly, a ferry service operated to Cherbourg in '89 using the former RFA Sir Lancelot? She was 126 m (412 ft) oa , which is a good 25 m longer than this ferry which Condor claim is too big.
No, I realise I'm a lone voice in the wilderness among all the howls of coruscation, if that's the word, at the Bunch of Muppets, but I think this is pure extortion pure & simple.

[quote][p][bold]MrTomSmith[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]JamesYoung[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]Jimmytheone[/bold] wrote:
Can somebody please respond.
1. Was there or is there a signed 15 year legal contract in place Yes or No
2. How long has this confidential document which Mr Bruce revealed been hidden ?
3 Condor have paid a deposit on the new boat so it is coming fact how long has this fact been know by the relevant councillors.
Without political one upmanship which will come into it can somebody without waffle please answer the above Three questions.[/p][/quote]I think there is a fourth question around the Harbour wall problems and that is whether or not there was a contract in place between Condor and WPBC at that time. I cannot believe for one minute that there was not. It would be interesting what that contract said about the damage to the walls and who would be responsible for it.
It has always struck me as strange that a commercial company like Condor did not sue for breach of contract, since a facility that they were (presumably) paying for was not available. If it is true that the run up times in Poole Harbour cost them extra fuel, then they would also have suffered a financial loss.
If is true that WPBC were responsible for maintenance AND Condor suffered a financial loss and they still did not sue, then it casts a rather different light on their "blackmail" of WPBC, doesn't it?[/p][/quote]I have to admit, it is strange that Condor accepted the fact that the wall needed repair trotted off to Poole and came back again without (seemingly) any real fuss. And agree the facts appearing now certainly do point the blame at the Council. It would also seem that everyone knew about the larger boat would not fit into Berth 3, and so makes it very hard to believe that the council did not know.
So we need the truth from WPBC don't we.[/p][/quote]"It would also seem that everyone knew about the larger boat would not fit into Berth 3, and so makes it very hard to believe that the council did not know."
Does everyone know that? Is it in fact true? Is it an excuse used by ferry company Condor for extortion?
Does anyone remember when, briefly, a ferry service operated to Cherbourg in '89 using the former RFA Sir Lancelot? She was 126 m (412 ft) oa , which is a good 25 m longer than this ferry which Condor claim is too big.
No, I realise I'm a lone voice in the wilderness among all the howls of coruscation, if that's the word, at the Bunch of Muppets, but I think this is pure extortion pure & simple.arlbergbahn

MrTomSmith wrote…

JamesYoung wrote…

Jimmytheone wrote…

Can somebody please respond.
1. Was there or is there a signed 15 year legal contract in place Yes or No
2. How long has this confidential document which Mr Bruce revealed been hidden ?
3 Condor have paid a deposit on the new boat so it is coming fact how long has this fact been know by the relevant councillors.

Without political one upmanship which will come into it can somebody without waffle please answer the above Three questions.

I think there is a fourth question around the Harbour wall problems and that is whether or not there was a contract in place between Condor and WPBC at that time. I cannot believe for one minute that there was not. It would be interesting what that contract said about the damage to the walls and who would be responsible for it.
It has always struck me as strange that a commercial company like Condor did not sue for breach of contract, since a facility that they were (presumably) paying for was not available. If it is true that the run up times in Poole Harbour cost them extra fuel, then they would also have suffered a financial loss.
If is true that WPBC were responsible for maintenance AND Condor suffered a financial loss and they still did not sue, then it casts a rather different light on their "blackmail" of WPBC, doesn't it?

I have to admit, it is strange that Condor accepted the fact that the wall needed repair trotted off to Poole and came back again without (seemingly) any real fuss. And agree the facts appearing now certainly do point the blame at the Council. It would also seem that everyone knew about the larger boat would not fit into Berth 3, and so makes it very hard to believe that the council did not know.
So we need the truth from WPBC don't we.

"It would also seem that everyone knew about the larger boat would not fit into Berth 3, and so makes it very hard to believe that the council did not know."
Does everyone know that? Is it in fact true? Is it an excuse used by ferry company Condor for extortion?
Does anyone remember when, briefly, a ferry service operated to Cherbourg in '89 using the former RFA Sir Lancelot? She was 126 m (412 ft) oa , which is a good 25 m longer than this ferry which Condor claim is too big.
No, I realise I'm a lone voice in the wilderness among all the howls of coruscation, if that's the word, at the Bunch of Muppets, but I think this is pure extortion pure & simple.

Score: 0

Jimmytheone
8:34am Sat 19 Apr 14

James Young you are exactly right in what your blogs say.I will ask again & again is there and has there been any legal binding contractural agreements between WPBC & Condor ? This could put the exit of the ferry in a new context.Surely they did not move off to Poole at an expense to themselves we spend 4 million and they come back and now just announce this without considering their position very carefully knowing they have paid the deposit on the new boat . Something commercially does not sit right here.

James Young you are exactly right in what your blogs say.I will ask again & again is there and has there been any legal binding contractural agreements between WPBC & Condor ? This could put the exit of the ferry in a new context.Surely they did not move off to Poole at an expense to themselves we spend 4 million and they come back and now just announce this without considering their position very carefully knowing they have paid the deposit on the new boat . Something commercially does not sit right here.Jimmytheone

James Young you are exactly right in what your blogs say.I will ask again & again is there and has there been any legal binding contractural agreements between WPBC & Condor ? This could put the exit of the ferry in a new context.Surely they did not move off to Poole at an expense to themselves we spend 4 million and they come back and now just announce this without considering their position very carefully knowing they have paid the deposit on the new boat . Something commercially does not sit right here.

Score: 3

D.shoreditch
9:09am Sat 19 Apr 14

All seems a bit underhand by Condor.

All seems a bit underhand by Condor.D.shoreditch

All seems a bit underhand by Condor.

Score: 0

Get a grip
9:19am Sat 19 Apr 14

Jimmytheone wrote…

Can somebody please respond.
1. Was there or is there a signed 15 year legal contract in place Yes or No
2. How long has this confidential document which Mr Bruce revealed been hidden ?
3 Condor have paid a deposit on the new boat so it is coming fact how long has this fact been know by the relevant councillors.

Without political one upmanship which will come into it can somebody without waffle please answer the above Three questions.

Theses are the questions I ell be asking of anyone knocks on my door looking for my vote

[quote][p][bold]Jimmytheone[/bold] wrote:
Can somebody please respond.
1. Was there or is there a signed 15 year legal contract in place Yes or No
2. How long has this confidential document which Mr Bruce revealed been hidden ?
3 Condor have paid a deposit on the new boat so it is coming fact how long has this fact been know by the relevant councillors.
Without political one upmanship which will come into it can somebody without waffle please answer the above Three questions.[/p][/quote]Theses are the questions I ell be asking of anyone knocks on my door looking for my voteGet a grip

Jimmytheone wrote…

Can somebody please respond.
1. Was there or is there a signed 15 year legal contract in place Yes or No
2. How long has this confidential document which Mr Bruce revealed been hidden ?
3 Condor have paid a deposit on the new boat so it is coming fact how long has this fact been know by the relevant councillors.

Without political one upmanship which will come into it can somebody without waffle please answer the above Three questions.

Theses are the questions I ell be asking of anyone knocks on my door looking for my vote

Score: 1

Woodgate
9:20am Sat 19 Apr 14

WPBC's handling of negotiations with Condor certainly warrants full scrutiny but I don't buy this 'if Condor leaves we are all doomed stuff'. Sure there is some occasional benefit to accommodation providers if a sailing time warrants an overnight stay but I suspect that most ferry users simply drive in and out of Weymouth and spend little locally. The support services to the vessels are useful but id be surprised if such businesses at Portland Port or Osprey Quay are totally reliant on Condor. WPBC needs to quickly raise its game in negotiations with Condor - I would (wager they wont want to lose the facility. More importantly, get on with the job of wholesale strategic re-planning of the W& P area assets, starting with the peninsular, harbour and seafront. Investment will surely follow if you make those areas somewhere people want to be. Condors prescence probably blights a part of the outer harbour and as for the pavilion...........

WPBC's handling of negotiations with Condor certainly warrants full scrutiny but I don't buy this 'if Condor leaves we are all doomed stuff'. Sure there is some occasional benefit to accommodation providers if a sailing time warrants an overnight stay but I suspect that most ferry users simply drive in and out of Weymouth and spend little locally. The support services to the vessels are useful but id be surprised if such businesses at Portland Port or Osprey Quay are totally reliant on Condor. WPBC needs to quickly raise its game in negotiations with Condor - I would (wager they wont want to lose the facility. More importantly, get on with the job of wholesale strategic re-planning of the W& P area assets, starting with the peninsular, harbour and seafront. Investment will surely follow if you make those areas somewhere people want to be. Condors prescence probably blights a part of the outer harbour and as for the pavilion...........Woodgate

WPBC's handling of negotiations with Condor certainly warrants full scrutiny but I don't buy this 'if Condor leaves we are all doomed stuff'. Sure there is some occasional benefit to accommodation providers if a sailing time warrants an overnight stay but I suspect that most ferry users simply drive in and out of Weymouth and spend little locally. The support services to the vessels are useful but id be surprised if such businesses at Portland Port or Osprey Quay are totally reliant on Condor. WPBC needs to quickly raise its game in negotiations with Condor - I would (wager they wont want to lose the facility. More importantly, get on with the job of wholesale strategic re-planning of the W& P area assets, starting with the peninsular, harbour and seafront. Investment will surely follow if you make those areas somewhere people want to be. Condors prescence probably blights a part of the outer harbour and as for the pavilion...........

Score: 8

Douglas Mc
10:07am Sat 19 Apr 14

Woodgate wrote…

Weymouth has been blighted by a succession of WPBC councillors and officers with no commercial ability and whose only interest is in self serving and keeping the status quo. For heavens sake Council get some real world, expert help and look forward not back. Sick to death of reading about disgruntled hoteliers and someone from the Chamber of Commerce who says 'I hope they can sort something out'.......

Suspect part of the problem is that the benefits to Weymouth from Condor operations don't all get into Council's coffers. It is the Hotels, shop etc that benefit. However if W&P can get the money needed - selling assets?

[quote][p][bold]Woodgate[/bold] wrote:
Weymouth has been blighted by a succession of WPBC councillors and officers with no commercial ability and whose only interest is in self serving and keeping the status quo. For heavens sake Council get some real world, expert help and look forward not back. Sick to death of reading about disgruntled hoteliers and someone from the Chamber of Commerce who says 'I hope they can sort something out'.......[/p][/quote]Suspect part of the problem is that the benefits to Weymouth from Condor operations don't all get into Council's coffers. It is the Hotels, shop etc that benefit. However if W&P can get the money needed - selling assets?Douglas Mc

Woodgate wrote…

Weymouth has been blighted by a succession of WPBC councillors and officers with no commercial ability and whose only interest is in self serving and keeping the status quo. For heavens sake Council get some real world, expert help and look forward not back. Sick to death of reading about disgruntled hoteliers and someone from the Chamber of Commerce who says 'I hope they can sort something out'.......

Suspect part of the problem is that the benefits to Weymouth from Condor operations don't all get into Council's coffers. It is the Hotels, shop etc that benefit. However if W&P can get the money needed - selling assets?

Score: 1

Douglas Mc
10:26am Sat 19 Apr 14

radiator wrote…

I have said it before and I will say it again,instead of wasting millions on the traffic system in Weymouth they should have pushed for the Western route for I am sure Portland could easily accommodate the ferry at Portland Port.
By having the terminal there it would ease the traffic in Weymouth and also if the Western route was in existence bring more trade to the area which in turn create more jobs.

The Dorchester Road By-pass and Weymouth Traffic System came about for the Olympics. Similarly a Western Relief Road would need to be funded and approved by Central Government. At present little prospect of the WRR ever being funded by HMG and unfortunately Portland Port has limited land available to store containers to be a major container port player. Moreover, other existing ports Bristol, Southampton etc are nearer to major centres of production and population.

And Councils only have the Council’s taxpayers’money. After funding Schools, increasing numbers of elderly in homes etc little scope for major commercial developments without massive Council Tax increases. And do our Council’s have the expertise to undertake such duties?

[quote][p][bold]radiator[/bold] wrote:
I have said it before and I will say it again,instead of wasting millions on the traffic system in Weymouth they should have pushed for the Western route for I am sure Portland could easily accommodate the ferry at Portland Port.
By having the terminal there it would ease the traffic in Weymouth and also if the Western route was in existence bring more trade to the area which in turn create more jobs.[/p][/quote]The Dorchester Road By-pass and Weymouth Traffic System came about for the Olympics. Similarly a Western Relief Road would need to be funded and approved by Central Government. At present little prospect of the WRR ever being funded by HMG and unfortunately Portland Port has limited land available to store containers to be a major container port player. Moreover, other existing ports Bristol, Southampton etc are nearer to major centres of production and population.
And Councils only have the Council’s taxpayers’money. After funding Schools, increasing numbers of elderly in homes etc little scope for major commercial developments without massive Council Tax increases. And do our Council’s have the expertise to undertake such duties?Douglas Mc

radiator wrote…

I have said it before and I will say it again,instead of wasting millions on the traffic system in Weymouth they should have pushed for the Western route for I am sure Portland could easily accommodate the ferry at Portland Port.
By having the terminal there it would ease the traffic in Weymouth and also if the Western route was in existence bring more trade to the area which in turn create more jobs.

The Dorchester Road By-pass and Weymouth Traffic System came about for the Olympics. Similarly a Western Relief Road would need to be funded and approved by Central Government. At present little prospect of the WRR ever being funded by HMG and unfortunately Portland Port has limited land available to store containers to be a major container port player. Moreover, other existing ports Bristol, Southampton etc are nearer to major centres of production and population.

And Councils only have the Council’s taxpayers’money. After funding Schools, increasing numbers of elderly in homes etc little scope for major commercial developments without massive Council Tax increases. And do our Council’s have the expertise to undertake such duties?

Score: 5

Caption Sensible
11:06am Sat 19 Apr 14

Douglas Mc wrote…

radiator wrote…

I have said it before and I will say it again,instead of wasting millions on the traffic system in Weymouth they should have pushed for the Western route for I am sure Portland could easily accommodate the ferry at Portland Port.
By having the terminal there it would ease the traffic in Weymouth and also if the Western route was in existence bring more trade to the area which in turn create more jobs.

The Dorchester Road By-pass and Weymouth Traffic System came about for the Olympics. Similarly a Western Relief Road would need to be funded and approved by Central Government. At present little prospect of the WRR ever being funded by HMG and unfortunately Portland Port has limited land available to store containers to be a major container port player. Moreover, other existing ports Bristol, Southampton etc are nearer to major centres of production and population.

And Councils only have the Council’s taxpayers’money. After funding Schools, increasing numbers of elderly in homes etc little scope for major commercial developments without massive Council Tax increases. And do our Council’s have the expertise to undertake such duties?

There is another way to fund major projects besides Big Government and taxation... It is called the private sector. But somehow that seems to be a wicked concept to some in these parts.

[quote][p][bold]Douglas Mc[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]radiator[/bold] wrote:
I have said it before and I will say it again,instead of wasting millions on the traffic system in Weymouth they should have pushed for the Western route for I am sure Portland could easily accommodate the ferry at Portland Port.
By having the terminal there it would ease the traffic in Weymouth and also if the Western route was in existence bring more trade to the area which in turn create more jobs.[/p][/quote]The Dorchester Road By-pass and Weymouth Traffic System came about for the Olympics. Similarly a Western Relief Road would need to be funded and approved by Central Government. At present little prospect of the WRR ever being funded by HMG and unfortunately Portland Port has limited land available to store containers to be a major container port player. Moreover, other existing ports Bristol, Southampton etc are nearer to major centres of production and population.
And Councils only have the Council’s taxpayers’money. After funding Schools, increasing numbers of elderly in homes etc little scope for major commercial developments without massive Council Tax increases. And do our Council’s have the expertise to undertake such duties?[/p][/quote]There is another way to fund major projects besides Big Government and taxation... It is called the private sector. But somehow that seems to be a wicked concept to some in these parts.Caption Sensible

Douglas Mc wrote…

radiator wrote…

I have said it before and I will say it again,instead of wasting millions on the traffic system in Weymouth they should have pushed for the Western route for I am sure Portland could easily accommodate the ferry at Portland Port.
By having the terminal there it would ease the traffic in Weymouth and also if the Western route was in existence bring more trade to the area which in turn create more jobs.

The Dorchester Road By-pass and Weymouth Traffic System came about for the Olympics. Similarly a Western Relief Road would need to be funded and approved by Central Government. At present little prospect of the WRR ever being funded by HMG and unfortunately Portland Port has limited land available to store containers to be a major container port player. Moreover, other existing ports Bristol, Southampton etc are nearer to major centres of production and population.

And Councils only have the Council’s taxpayers’money. After funding Schools, increasing numbers of elderly in homes etc little scope for major commercial developments without massive Council Tax increases. And do our Council’s have the expertise to undertake such duties?

There is another way to fund major projects besides Big Government and taxation... It is called the private sector. But somehow that seems to be a wicked concept to some in these parts.

Score: 4

Zummerzet Lad
11:10am Sat 19 Apr 14

When NHS Trust Boards get things seriously wrong the Government put outsiders in to put things right. Shame they cannot do same for Councils.

Portland Port would be ideal but the sequence for traffic lights need to favour A354 to Portland even those by ASDA. Clear main road parking except Bus Stops through Wyke in narrow areas where traffic cannot free flow past parked cars.

Then Weymouth and Portland might stand a chance and I'm sure sorting out traffic flow etc would cost less than £10,000,000.

I know there is a possible argument that DCC not W&PBC pays for transport links but W&PBC could offer the money to get it done and SOONER rather than later.

Your thought please fellow commenters

When NHS Trust Boards get things seriously wrong the Government put outsiders in to put things right. Shame they cannot do same for Councils.
Portland Port would be ideal but the sequence for traffic lights need to favour A354 to Portland even those by ASDA. Clear main road parking except Bus Stops through Wyke in narrow areas where traffic cannot free flow past parked cars.
Then Weymouth and Portland might stand a chance and I'm sure sorting out traffic flow etc would cost less than £10,000,000.
I know there is a possible argument that DCC not W&PBC pays for transport links but W&PBC could offer the money to get it done and SOONER rather than later.
Your thought please fellow commentersZummerzet Lad

When NHS Trust Boards get things seriously wrong the Government put outsiders in to put things right. Shame they cannot do same for Councils.

Portland Port would be ideal but the sequence for traffic lights need to favour A354 to Portland even those by ASDA. Clear main road parking except Bus Stops through Wyke in narrow areas where traffic cannot free flow past parked cars.

Then Weymouth and Portland might stand a chance and I'm sure sorting out traffic flow etc would cost less than £10,000,000.

I know there is a possible argument that DCC not W&PBC pays for transport links but W&PBC could offer the money to get it done and SOONER rather than later.

Your thought please fellow commenters

Score: 3

MrTomSmith
12:25pm Sat 19 Apr 14

Zummerzet Lad wrote…

When NHS Trust Boards get things seriously wrong the Government put outsiders in to put things right. Shame they cannot do same for Councils.

Portland Port would be ideal but the sequence for traffic lights need to favour A354 to Portland even those by ASDA. Clear main road parking except Bus Stops through Wyke in narrow areas where traffic cannot free flow past parked cars.

Then Weymouth and Portland might stand a chance and I'm sure sorting out traffic flow etc would cost less than £10,000,000.

I know there is a possible argument that DCC not W&PBC pays for transport links but W&PBC could offer the money to get it done and SOONER rather than later.

Your thought please fellow commenters

Nothing to add except it is amazing how there was SEVEN years before the Olympics and it's now 2 years since the Olympics and the ASDA / A354 is just as bad as it's ever been. NINE YEARS and a GOLDEN chance to sort it out and they ALL FAILED. I know its a separate issue but it just adds to the frustration of how badly we are being let down by all the local authorities and councillors, they are shocking.
We should really be looking to hold some kind of vote of no confidence. I shudder when I look at my £177 a month council tax bill. Its a crime.

[quote][p][bold]Zummerzet Lad[/bold] wrote:
When NHS Trust Boards get things seriously wrong the Government put outsiders in to put things right. Shame they cannot do same for Councils.
Portland Port would be ideal but the sequence for traffic lights need to favour A354 to Portland even those by ASDA. Clear main road parking except Bus Stops through Wyke in narrow areas where traffic cannot free flow past parked cars.
Then Weymouth and Portland might stand a chance and I'm sure sorting out traffic flow etc would cost less than £10,000,000.
I know there is a possible argument that DCC not W&PBC pays for transport links but W&PBC could offer the money to get it done and SOONER rather than later.
Your thought please fellow commenters[/p][/quote]Nothing to add except it is amazing how there was SEVEN years before the Olympics and it's now 2 years since the Olympics and the ASDA / A354 is just as bad as it's ever been. NINE YEARS and a GOLDEN chance to sort it out and they ALL FAILED. I know its a separate issue but it just adds to the frustration of how badly we are being let down by all the local authorities and councillors, they are shocking.
We should really be looking to hold some kind of vote of no confidence. I shudder when I look at my £177 a month council tax bill. Its a crime.MrTomSmith

Zummerzet Lad wrote…

When NHS Trust Boards get things seriously wrong the Government put outsiders in to put things right. Shame they cannot do same for Councils.

Portland Port would be ideal but the sequence for traffic lights need to favour A354 to Portland even those by ASDA. Clear main road parking except Bus Stops through Wyke in narrow areas where traffic cannot free flow past parked cars.

Then Weymouth and Portland might stand a chance and I'm sure sorting out traffic flow etc would cost less than £10,000,000.

I know there is a possible argument that DCC not W&PBC pays for transport links but W&PBC could offer the money to get it done and SOONER rather than later.

Your thought please fellow commenters

Nothing to add except it is amazing how there was SEVEN years before the Olympics and it's now 2 years since the Olympics and the ASDA / A354 is just as bad as it's ever been. NINE YEARS and a GOLDEN chance to sort it out and they ALL FAILED. I know its a separate issue but it just adds to the frustration of how badly we are being let down by all the local authorities and councillors, they are shocking.
We should really be looking to hold some kind of vote of no confidence. I shudder when I look at my £177 a month council tax bill. Its a crime.

Score: 4

sandman223
1:14pm Sat 19 Apr 14

arlbergbahn wrote…

So basically, as usual, it's all the Council's fault as usual, and the ferry company saying "you spent 4 mill for our benefit last year, now we'd like you to spend another 10 mill purely for our benefit, which isn't even necessary anyway because it'd be perfectly possible for this new ferry to use the existing facility", that's fine and perfectly justified because as we know Weymouth & Portland Borough Council are a bunch of muppets, so they're naturally always to blame for everything, even attempts at extortion by monopolistic private companies? So extortion is fine when a bunch of muppets are the ones being extorted?

lets remember it WAS the councils responsibilty to do bi annual checks on the harbour set up which wasnt done, the 4 million spent to repair the wall was due to the councils mistake of not carrying out checks as they were meant to! They did not spent it as a favour to condor, rather a cover up for the councils mistake!

I have also seen comments on here asking why condor dont use portland, well we would still be in the same situation, no linkspan at portland! no terminal, poor traffic routes etc.....

The 10 million for the new berth would be recouped within 2 years within the local economy as condor reportedly brings in 7.7 mill a year to local economy already!

The council should invest the money if the want any future in weymouth!

[quote][p][bold]arlbergbahn[/bold] wrote:
So basically, as usual, it's all the Council's fault as usual, and the ferry company saying "you spent 4 mill for our benefit last year, now we'd like you to spend another 10 mill purely for our benefit, which isn't even necessary anyway because it'd be perfectly possible for this new ferry to use the existing facility", that's fine and perfectly justified because as we know Weymouth & Portland Borough Council are a bunch of muppets, so they're naturally always to blame for everything, even attempts at extortion by monopolistic private companies? So extortion is fine when a bunch of muppets are the ones being extorted?[/p][/quote]lets remember it WAS the councils responsibilty to do bi annual checks on the harbour set up which wasnt done, the 4 million spent to repair the wall was due to the councils mistake of not carrying out checks as they were meant to! They did not spent it as a favour to condor, rather a cover up for the councils mistake!
I have also seen comments on here asking why condor dont use portland, well we would still be in the same situation, no linkspan at portland! no terminal, poor traffic routes etc.....
The 10 million for the new berth would be recouped within 2 years within the local economy as condor reportedly brings in 7.7 mill a year to local economy already!
The council should invest the money if the want any future in weymouth!sandman223

arlbergbahn wrote…

So basically, as usual, it's all the Council's fault as usual, and the ferry company saying "you spent 4 mill for our benefit last year, now we'd like you to spend another 10 mill purely for our benefit, which isn't even necessary anyway because it'd be perfectly possible for this new ferry to use the existing facility", that's fine and perfectly justified because as we know Weymouth & Portland Borough Council are a bunch of muppets, so they're naturally always to blame for everything, even attempts at extortion by monopolistic private companies? So extortion is fine when a bunch of muppets are the ones being extorted?

lets remember it WAS the councils responsibilty to do bi annual checks on the harbour set up which wasnt done, the 4 million spent to repair the wall was due to the councils mistake of not carrying out checks as they were meant to! They did not spent it as a favour to condor, rather a cover up for the councils mistake!

I have also seen comments on here asking why condor dont use portland, well we would still be in the same situation, no linkspan at portland! no terminal, poor traffic routes etc.....

The 10 million for the new berth would be recouped within 2 years within the local economy as condor reportedly brings in 7.7 mill a year to local economy already!

The council should invest the money if the want any future in weymouth!

Score: 5

sandman223
1:20pm Sat 19 Apr 14

MrTomSmith wrote…

This is just a yesterday's article with a couple of interviews from Hoteliers and a petition. There were scores of comments yesterday with a lot of good points, and the main one was What happened to this so called 15 year contract? Echo you need to get nasty, give them some real bad publicity, they are holding us to Ransom (quite right there) but they have done it after WE, YES WE forked out 7 MILLION POUNDS for Berth 3.
You know what I would do, I would say bye bye, that's it your out.....end the month. Clear off back to Poole.

and then you would be wrong and throwing away money that the service brings in to the local economy!

[quote][p][bold]MrTomSmith[/bold] wrote:
This is just a yesterday's article with a couple of interviews from Hoteliers and a petition. There were scores of comments yesterday with a lot of good points, and the main one was What happened to this so called 15 year contract? Echo you need to get nasty, give them some real bad publicity, they are holding us to Ransom (quite right there) but they have done it after WE, YES WE forked out 7 MILLION POUNDS for Berth 3.
You know what I would do, I would say bye bye, that's it your out.....end the month. Clear off back to Poole.[/p][/quote]and then you would be wrong and throwing away money that the service brings in to the local economy!sandman223

MrTomSmith wrote…

This is just a yesterday's article with a couple of interviews from Hoteliers and a petition. There were scores of comments yesterday with a lot of good points, and the main one was What happened to this so called 15 year contract? Echo you need to get nasty, give them some real bad publicity, they are holding us to Ransom (quite right there) but they have done it after WE, YES WE forked out 7 MILLION POUNDS for Berth 3.
You know what I would do, I would say bye bye, that's it your out.....end the month. Clear off back to Poole.

and then you would be wrong and throwing away money that the service brings in to the local economy!

Score: -1

greencar
1:36pm Sat 19 Apr 14

portland pat.kick them out NOW and bring in sealink on a binding contract.

portland pat.kick them out NOW and bring in sealink on a binding contract.greencar

portland pat.kick them out NOW and bring in sealink on a binding contract.

Score: 0

seashellbill
2:51pm Sat 19 Apr 14

£10 million - must be small beer after all the money that has been wasted over the years on Weymouth's road system! Condor holding Weymouth to ransom? Don't be ridiculous, this is a company whose only loyalty is to its shareholders. If, as others have suggested there is a contract which binds Condor to Weymouth then it's hard to see how condor could pull out of Weymouth without being in breech of the contract? However rather than bickering about it, get on and take some positive action. My vote would be to take the service to Portland port, which has the foresight to look ahead, hence the adaptations for large liners, etc.,

£10 million - must be small beer after all the money that has been wasted over the years on Weymouth's road system! Condor holding Weymouth to ransom? Don't be ridiculous, this is a company whose only loyalty is to its shareholders. If, as others have suggested there is a contract which binds Condor to Weymouth then it's hard to see how condor could pull out of Weymouth without being in breech of the contract? However rather than bickering about it, get on and take some positive action. My vote would be to take the service to Portland port, which has the foresight to look ahead, hence the adaptations for large liners, etc.,seashellbill

£10 million - must be small beer after all the money that has been wasted over the years on Weymouth's road system! Condor holding Weymouth to ransom? Don't be ridiculous, this is a company whose only loyalty is to its shareholders. If, as others have suggested there is a contract which binds Condor to Weymouth then it's hard to see how condor could pull out of Weymouth without being in breech of the contract? However rather than bickering about it, get on and take some positive action. My vote would be to take the service to Portland port, which has the foresight to look ahead, hence the adaptations for large liners, etc.,

Score: 5

MrTomSmith
5:57pm Sat 19 Apr 14

Guernsey is expensive

Guernsey is expensiveMrTomSmith

Guernsey is expensive

Score: 0

rjimmer
9:43pm Sat 19 Apr 14

How much has been put into the Council staff pension fund while this situation has been developing?

How much has been put into the Council staff pension fund while this situation has been developing?rjimmer

How much has been put into the Council staff pension fund while this situation has been developing?

Score: 0

Parkstreetshufle
10:09pm Sat 19 Apr 14

JamesYoung wrote…

"Weymouth stunned" - who is stunned? I'm not.
"The Borough is reeling" - who is "the borough"? Assuming you mean the Borough of W&P, have you spoken to everybody in it?
It would be nice to read the story without the inaccurate superlatives.

I'd be happy if there were simply no moderation. You can't make comments without someone complaining and having it removed. It's a poor version of someone's reality.

[quote][p][bold]JamesYoung[/bold] wrote:
"Weymouth stunned" - who is stunned? I'm not.
"The Borough is reeling" - who is "the borough"? Assuming you mean the Borough of W&P, have you spoken to everybody in it?
It would be nice to read the story without the inaccurate superlatives.[/p][/quote]I'd be happy if there were simply no moderation. You can't make comments without someone complaining and having it removed. It's a poor version of someone's reality.Parkstreetshufle

JamesYoung wrote…

"Weymouth stunned" - who is stunned? I'm not.
"The Borough is reeling" - who is "the borough"? Assuming you mean the Borough of W&P, have you spoken to everybody in it?
It would be nice to read the story without the inaccurate superlatives.

I'd be happy if there were simply no moderation. You can't make comments without someone complaining and having it removed. It's a poor version of someone's reality.

Score: 1

Parkstreetshufle
10:12pm Sat 19 Apr 14

There was a time the Channel Islands imported tomatoes and potatoes. Honest people making honest money. These days it's mostly a hiding place for tax evaders. Do we need that kind of a kickback? If the service usefully went to France I might be bothered to care.

There was a time the Channel Islands imported tomatoes and potatoes. Honest people making honest money. These days it's mostly a hiding place for tax evaders. Do we need that kind of a kickback? If the service usefully went to France I might be bothered to care.Parkstreetshufle

There was a time the Channel Islands imported tomatoes and potatoes. Honest people making honest money. These days it's mostly a hiding place for tax evaders. Do we need that kind of a kickback? If the service usefully went to France I might be bothered to care.

Score: 0

Jimmytheone
10:28pm Sat 19 Apr 14

Mr Sandman233 you like others quote figures of 7.7 million ibrought into the Weymouth economy . I ask again where have you &others dreamed up that figure ??from.When the ferry comes in there is traffic chaos along the Esplanade whilst they all drive out of town.Before sailing some passengers stay overnight before boarding granted but they are going on holiday they come to catch the ferry not spend the day shopping. Ask local business owners ( shops ) what they gain from Condor. The main financial benefit is the harbour dues.
You also suggest WPBC invest the 10 million, the hard fact is they have to sell all their assetts now to plug the black hole.We are skint .

Mr Sandman233 you like others quote figures of 7.7 million ibrought into the Weymouth economy . I ask again where have you &others dreamed up that figure ??from.When the ferry comes in there is traffic chaos along the Esplanade whilst they all drive out of town.Before sailing some passengers stay overnight before boarding granted but they are going on holiday they come to catch the ferry not spend the day shopping. Ask local business owners ( shops ) what they gain from Condor. The main financial benefit is the harbour dues.
You also suggest WPBC invest the 10 million, the hard fact is they have to sell all their assetts now to plug the black hole.We are skint .Jimmytheone

Mr Sandman233 you like others quote figures of 7.7 million ibrought into the Weymouth economy . I ask again where have you &others dreamed up that figure ??from.When the ferry comes in there is traffic chaos along the Esplanade whilst they all drive out of town.Before sailing some passengers stay overnight before boarding granted but they are going on holiday they come to catch the ferry not spend the day shopping. Ask local business owners ( shops ) what they gain from Condor. The main financial benefit is the harbour dues.
You also suggest WPBC invest the 10 million, the hard fact is they have to sell all their assetts now to plug the black hole.We are skint .

Score: 1

sandman223
11:47pm Sat 19 Apr 14

Jimmytheone wrote…

Mr Sandman233 you like others quote figures of 7.7 million ibrought into the Weymouth economy . I ask again where have you &others dreamed up that figure ??from.When the ferry comes in there is traffic chaos along the Esplanade whilst they all drive out of town.Before sailing some passengers stay overnight before boarding granted but they are going on holiday they come to catch the ferry not spend the day shopping. Ask local business owners ( shops ) what they gain from Condor. The main financial benefit is the harbour dues.
You also suggest WPBC invest the 10 million, the hard fact is they have to sell all their assetts now to plug the black hole.We are skint .

Tourist from the islands visiting and staying in Weymouth, taxi services, compamy vehicle rentals locally, staff wages many of whom will live in weymouth i suspect, as u have pointed out passengers staying (overnight at least), car parking for foot passengers, harbour dues, local restaurants, docking fees........ the list goes on..... thats where the 7.7mill that has been quoted by the echo several times, not saying that figure is correct but im sure it is a fair few million each year.

Traffic choas when condor comes in?? its usually late nights, im pretty sure the traffic choas that you seem to be imagining is not due to condor.

[quote][p][bold]Jimmytheone[/bold] wrote:
Mr Sandman233 you like others quote figures of 7.7 million ibrought into the Weymouth economy . I ask again where have you &others dreamed up that figure ??from.When the ferry comes in there is traffic chaos along the Esplanade whilst they all drive out of town.Before sailing some passengers stay overnight before boarding granted but they are going on holiday they come to catch the ferry not spend the day shopping. Ask local business owners ( shops ) what they gain from Condor. The main financial benefit is the harbour dues.
You also suggest WPBC invest the 10 million, the hard fact is they have to sell all their assetts now to plug the black hole.We are skint .[/p][/quote]Tourist from the islands visiting and staying in Weymouth, taxi services, compamy vehicle rentals locally, staff wages many of whom will live in weymouth i suspect, as u have pointed out passengers staying (overnight at least), car parking for foot passengers, harbour dues, local restaurants, docking fees........ the list goes on..... thats where the 7.7mill that has been quoted by the echo several times, not saying that figure is correct but im sure it is a fair few million each year.
Traffic choas when condor comes in?? its usually late nights, im pretty sure the traffic choas that you seem to be imagining is not due to condor.sandman223

Jimmytheone wrote…

Mr Sandman233 you like others quote figures of 7.7 million ibrought into the Weymouth economy . I ask again where have you &others dreamed up that figure ??from.When the ferry comes in there is traffic chaos along the Esplanade whilst they all drive out of town.Before sailing some passengers stay overnight before boarding granted but they are going on holiday they come to catch the ferry not spend the day shopping. Ask local business owners ( shops ) what they gain from Condor. The main financial benefit is the harbour dues.
You also suggest WPBC invest the 10 million, the hard fact is they have to sell all their assetts now to plug the black hole.We are skint .

Tourist from the islands visiting and staying in Weymouth, taxi services, compamy vehicle rentals locally, staff wages many of whom will live in weymouth i suspect, as u have pointed out passengers staying (overnight at least), car parking for foot passengers, harbour dues, local restaurants, docking fees........ the list goes on..... thats where the 7.7mill that has been quoted by the echo several times, not saying that figure is correct but im sure it is a fair few million each year.

Traffic choas when condor comes in?? its usually late nights, im pretty sure the traffic choas that you seem to be imagining is not due to condor.

Score: 2

sandman223
11:58pm Sat 19 Apr 14

A new linkspan could also accomodate larger vessels such as cruise liners and bring much more to the town, have the council thought of this? Who said it has to be just for Condors use?

A new linkspan could also accomodate larger vessels such as cruise liners and bring much more to the town, have the council thought of this? Who said it has to be just for Condors use?sandman223

A new linkspan could also accomodate larger vessels such as cruise liners and bring much more to the town, have the council thought of this? Who said it has to be just for Condors use?

Score: -2

cosmick
8:33am Sun 20 Apr 14

Get a grip wrote…

Jimmytheone wrote…

Can somebody please respond.
1. Was there or is there a signed 15 year legal contract in place Yes or No
2. How long has this confidential document which Mr Bruce revealed been hidden ?
3 Condor have paid a deposit on the new boat so it is coming fact how long has this fact been know by the relevant councillors.

Without political one upmanship which will come into it can somebody without waffle please answer the above Three questions.

Theses are the questions I ell be asking of anyone knocks on my door looking for my vote

What if the person knocking on your door is Not a standing councillor(a new face), or are you saying that you will only consider the existing faces.

[quote][p][bold]Get a grip[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]Jimmytheone[/bold] wrote:
Can somebody please respond.
1. Was there or is there a signed 15 year legal contract in place Yes or No
2. How long has this confidential document which Mr Bruce revealed been hidden ?
3 Condor have paid a deposit on the new boat so it is coming fact how long has this fact been know by the relevant councillors.
Without political one upmanship which will come into it can somebody without waffle please answer the above Three questions.[/p][/quote]Theses are the questions I ell be asking of anyone knocks on my door looking for my vote[/p][/quote]What if the person knocking on your door is Not a standing councillor(a new face), or are you saying that you will only consider the existing faces.cosmick

Get a grip wrote…

Jimmytheone wrote…

Can somebody please respond.
1. Was there or is there a signed 15 year legal contract in place Yes or No
2. How long has this confidential document which Mr Bruce revealed been hidden ?
3 Condor have paid a deposit on the new boat so it is coming fact how long has this fact been know by the relevant councillors.

Without political one upmanship which will come into it can somebody without waffle please answer the above Three questions.

Theses are the questions I ell be asking of anyone knocks on my door looking for my vote

What if the person knocking on your door is Not a standing councillor(a new face), or are you saying that you will only consider the existing faces.

Score: 0

cosmick
8:55am Sun 20 Apr 14

I belive to retain the service from WEYMOUTH would be an asset to the town.
The part that was played between the two parties needs to be made public. If Weymouth is to blame lets know if CONDOR are to blame also make it known to the public.
There are other companys out there doing this sevice, if Condor went to poole and a new sevice came to WEYMOUTH what would that do to the profits of CONDOR?
Its not all bleak may be an opportunity to have something better.
Please dont think about PORTLAND for the service as the road links are just no good. Promote PORTLAND on its merits.
WEYMOUTH AND PORTLAND deserve better than they are getting at the present time to stop the decline.

I belive to retain the service from WEYMOUTH would be an asset to the town.
The part that was played between the two parties needs to be made public. If Weymouth is to blame lets know if CONDOR are to blame also make it known to the public.
There are other companys out there doing this sevice, if Condor went to poole and a new sevice came to WEYMOUTH what would that do to the profits of CONDOR?
Its not all bleak may be an opportunity to have something better.
Please dont think about PORTLAND for the service as the road links are just no good. Promote PORTLAND on its merits.
WEYMOUTH AND PORTLAND deserve better than they are getting at the present time to stop the decline.cosmick

I belive to retain the service from WEYMOUTH would be an asset to the town.
The part that was played between the two parties needs to be made public. If Weymouth is to blame lets know if CONDOR are to blame also make it known to the public.
There are other companys out there doing this sevice, if Condor went to poole and a new sevice came to WEYMOUTH what would that do to the profits of CONDOR?
Its not all bleak may be an opportunity to have something better.
Please dont think about PORTLAND for the service as the road links are just no good. Promote PORTLAND on its merits.
WEYMOUTH AND PORTLAND deserve better than they are getting at the present time to stop the decline.

Score: 1

Parkstreetshufle
9:59am Sun 20 Apr 14

sandman223 wrote…

Jimmytheone wrote…

Mr Sandman233 you like others quote figures of 7.7 million ibrought into the Weymouth economy . I ask again where have you &others dreamed up that figure ??from.When the ferry comes in there is traffic chaos along the Esplanade whilst they all drive out of town.Before sailing some passengers stay overnight before boarding granted but they are going on holiday they come to catch the ferry not spend the day shopping. Ask local business owners ( shops ) what they gain from Condor. The main financial benefit is the harbour dues.
You also suggest WPBC invest the 10 million, the hard fact is they have to sell all their assetts now to plug the black hole.We are skint .

Tourist from the islands visiting and staying in Weymouth, taxi services, compamy vehicle rentals locally, staff wages many of whom will live in weymouth i suspect, as u have pointed out passengers staying (overnight at least), car parking for foot passengers, harbour dues, local restaurants, docking fees........ the list goes on..... thats where the 7.7mill that has been quoted by the echo several times, not saying that figure is correct but im sure it is a fair few million each year.

Traffic choas when condor comes in?? its usually late nights, im pretty sure the traffic choas that you seem to be imagining is not due to condor.

Sorry, but u have to agree with the former poster. The council are right to consider this carefully, 10million against a very subjective return is not on. Let Poole have the condor. It's only a channel island service now anyway and I would argue it provides more of a service to the Islands than it does to Weymouth. They want the service - let them stump up some money if they want it that badly...

[quote][p][bold]sandman223[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]Jimmytheone[/bold] wrote:
Mr Sandman233 you like others quote figures of 7.7 million ibrought into the Weymouth economy . I ask again where have you &others dreamed up that figure ??from.When the ferry comes in there is traffic chaos along the Esplanade whilst they all drive out of town.Before sailing some passengers stay overnight before boarding granted but they are going on holiday they come to catch the ferry not spend the day shopping. Ask local business owners ( shops ) what they gain from Condor. The main financial benefit is the harbour dues.
You also suggest WPBC invest the 10 million, the hard fact is they have to sell all their assetts now to plug the black hole.We are skint .[/p][/quote]Tourist from the islands visiting and staying in Weymouth, taxi services, compamy vehicle rentals locally, staff wages many of whom will live in weymouth i suspect, as u have pointed out passengers staying (overnight at least), car parking for foot passengers, harbour dues, local restaurants, docking fees........ the list goes on..... thats where the 7.7mill that has been quoted by the echo several times, not saying that figure is correct but im sure it is a fair few million each year.
Traffic choas when condor comes in?? its usually late nights, im pretty sure the traffic choas that you seem to be imagining is not due to condor.[/p][/quote]Sorry, but u have to agree with the former poster. The council are right to consider this carefully, 10million against a very subjective return is not on. Let Poole have the condor. It's only a channel island service now anyway and I would argue it provides more of a service to the Islands than it does to Weymouth. They want the service - let them stump up some money if they want it that badly...Parkstreetshufle

sandman223 wrote…

Jimmytheone wrote…

Mr Sandman233 you like others quote figures of 7.7 million ibrought into the Weymouth economy . I ask again where have you &others dreamed up that figure ??from.When the ferry comes in there is traffic chaos along the Esplanade whilst they all drive out of town.Before sailing some passengers stay overnight before boarding granted but they are going on holiday they come to catch the ferry not spend the day shopping. Ask local business owners ( shops ) what they gain from Condor. The main financial benefit is the harbour dues.
You also suggest WPBC invest the 10 million, the hard fact is they have to sell all their assetts now to plug the black hole.We are skint .

Tourist from the islands visiting and staying in Weymouth, taxi services, compamy vehicle rentals locally, staff wages many of whom will live in weymouth i suspect, as u have pointed out passengers staying (overnight at least), car parking for foot passengers, harbour dues, local restaurants, docking fees........ the list goes on..... thats where the 7.7mill that has been quoted by the echo several times, not saying that figure is correct but im sure it is a fair few million each year.

Traffic choas when condor comes in?? its usually late nights, im pretty sure the traffic choas that you seem to be imagining is not due to condor.

Sorry, but u have to agree with the former poster. The council are right to consider this carefully, 10million against a very subjective return is not on. Let Poole have the condor. It's only a channel island service now anyway and I would argue it provides more of a service to the Islands than it does to Weymouth. They want the service - let them stump up some money if they want it that badly...

Well the MOD left and Portland is still managing to survive, even without the help of WPBC.

Score: 4

sandman223
10:52am Sun 20 Apr 14

Parkstreetshufle wrote…

sandman223 wrote…

Jimmytheone wrote…

Mr Sandman233 you like others quote figures of 7.7 million ibrought into the Weymouth economy . I ask again where have you &others dreamed up that figure ??from.When the ferry comes in there is traffic chaos along the Esplanade whilst they all drive out of town.Before sailing some passengers stay overnight before boarding granted but they are going on holiday they come to catch the ferry not spend the day shopping. Ask local business owners ( shops ) what they gain from Condor. The main financial benefit is the harbour dues. You also suggest WPBC invest the 10 million, the hard fact is they have to sell all their assetts now to plug the black hole.We are skint .

Tourist from the islands visiting and staying in Weymouth, taxi services, compamy vehicle rentals locally, staff wages many of whom will live in weymouth i suspect, as u have pointed out passengers staying (overnight at least), car parking for foot passengers, harbour dues, local restaurants, docking fees........ the list goes on..... thats where the 7.7mill that has been quoted by the echo several times, not saying that figure is correct but im sure it is a fair few million each year. Traffic choas when condor comes in?? its usually late nights, im pretty sure the traffic choas that you seem to be imagining is not due to condor.

Sorry, but u have to agree with the former poster. The council are right to consider this carefully, 10million against a very subjective return is not on. Let Poole have the condor. It's only a channel island service now anyway and I would argue it provides more of a service to the Islands than it does to Weymouth. They want the service - let them stump up some money if they want it that badly...

Please do some research before posting. The service is a daily service to the chamnel islands with connections to france and europe during the season. As many cars go over from the uk as come from the islands into the uk! A very subjective return?? guaranteed return of money more like.

[quote][p][bold]Parkstreetshufle[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]sandman223[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Jimmytheone[/bold] wrote: Mr Sandman233 you like others quote figures of 7.7 million ibrought into the Weymouth economy . I ask again where have you &others dreamed up that figure ??from.When the ferry comes in there is traffic chaos along the Esplanade whilst they all drive out of town.Before sailing some passengers stay overnight before boarding granted but they are going on holiday they come to catch the ferry not spend the day shopping. Ask local business owners ( shops ) what they gain from Condor. The main financial benefit is the harbour dues. You also suggest WPBC invest the 10 million, the hard fact is they have to sell all their assetts now to plug the black hole.We are skint .[/p][/quote]Tourist from the islands visiting and staying in Weymouth, taxi services, compamy vehicle rentals locally, staff wages many of whom will live in weymouth i suspect, as u have pointed out passengers staying (overnight at least), car parking for foot passengers, harbour dues, local restaurants, docking fees........ the list goes on..... thats where the 7.7mill that has been quoted by the echo several times, not saying that figure is correct but im sure it is a fair few million each year. Traffic choas when condor comes in?? its usually late nights, im pretty sure the traffic choas that you seem to be imagining is not due to condor.[/p][/quote]Sorry, but u have to agree with the former poster. The council are right to consider this carefully, 10million against a very subjective return is not on. Let Poole have the condor. It's only a channel island service now anyway and I would argue it provides more of a service to the Islands than it does to Weymouth. They want the service - let them stump up some money if they want it that badly...[/p][/quote]Please do some research before posting. The service is a daily service to the chamnel islands with connections to france and europe during the season. As many cars go over from the uk as come from the islands into the uk! A very subjective return?? guaranteed return of money more like.sandman223

Parkstreetshufle wrote…

sandman223 wrote…

Jimmytheone wrote…

Mr Sandman233 you like others quote figures of 7.7 million ibrought into the Weymouth economy . I ask again where have you &others dreamed up that figure ??from.When the ferry comes in there is traffic chaos along the Esplanade whilst they all drive out of town.Before sailing some passengers stay overnight before boarding granted but they are going on holiday they come to catch the ferry not spend the day shopping. Ask local business owners ( shops ) what they gain from Condor. The main financial benefit is the harbour dues. You also suggest WPBC invest the 10 million, the hard fact is they have to sell all their assetts now to plug the black hole.We are skint .

Tourist from the islands visiting and staying in Weymouth, taxi services, compamy vehicle rentals locally, staff wages many of whom will live in weymouth i suspect, as u have pointed out passengers staying (overnight at least), car parking for foot passengers, harbour dues, local restaurants, docking fees........ the list goes on..... thats where the 7.7mill that has been quoted by the echo several times, not saying that figure is correct but im sure it is a fair few million each year. Traffic choas when condor comes in?? its usually late nights, im pretty sure the traffic choas that you seem to be imagining is not due to condor.

Sorry, but u have to agree with the former poster. The council are right to consider this carefully, 10million against a very subjective return is not on. Let Poole have the condor. It's only a channel island service now anyway and I would argue it provides more of a service to the Islands than it does to Weymouth. They want the service - let them stump up some money if they want it that badly...

Please do some research before posting. The service is a daily service to the chamnel islands with connections to france and europe during the season. As many cars go over from the uk as come from the islands into the uk! A very subjective return?? guaranteed return of money more like.

Score: 2

Woodgate
2:02pm Sun 20 Apr 14

I'd be interested to see a proven analysis of actual, annual income to the WPBC area that is solely from Condor and its passengers. My guess is that many people sailing from/arriving at Weymouth probably drive straight on to other, more appealing, locations. Of course there are some local staff and support service benefits and I would like to see these retained and grown but I suspect the real value is exaggerated according to agendas, particularly given the costs of maintaining and modernising berthing facilities. Don't forget our clever Council got into bed with an over stretched Irish development co just as the market was collapsing and I recall they would have preferred Condor to go somewhere else (hard to sell top end flats with all that noise and traffic queuing on and off). The whole pavilion area should be re-planned by people who know what they're doing !

I'd be interested to see a proven analysis of actual, annual income to the WPBC area that is solely from Condor and its passengers. My guess is that many people sailing from/arriving at Weymouth probably drive straight on to other, more appealing, locations. Of course there are some local staff and support service benefits and I would like to see these retained and grown but I suspect the real value is exaggerated according to agendas, particularly given the costs of maintaining and modernising berthing facilities. Don't forget our clever Council got into bed with an over stretched Irish development co just as the market was collapsing and I recall they would have preferred Condor to go somewhere else (hard to sell top end flats with all that noise and traffic queuing on and off). The whole pavilion area should be re-planned by people who know what they're doing !Woodgate

I'd be interested to see a proven analysis of actual, annual income to the WPBC area that is solely from Condor and its passengers. My guess is that many people sailing from/arriving at Weymouth probably drive straight on to other, more appealing, locations. Of course there are some local staff and support service benefits and I would like to see these retained and grown but I suspect the real value is exaggerated according to agendas, particularly given the costs of maintaining and modernising berthing facilities. Don't forget our clever Council got into bed with an over stretched Irish development co just as the market was collapsing and I recall they would have preferred Condor to go somewhere else (hard to sell top end flats with all that noise and traffic queuing on and off). The whole pavilion area should be re-planned by people who know what they're doing !

Score: 3

X Old Bill
3:27pm Sun 20 Apr 14

sandman223 wrote…

A new linkspan could also accomodate larger vessels such as cruise liners and bring much more to the town, have the council thought of this? Who said it has to be just for Condors use?

Cruise ships do not need a link-span.
A link-span is used as a ramp to span the gap between the the bow or stern entry doors on a car ferry so that vehicles can get on and off.
Cruise ships do, however, need a port with sufficient deep water at and around the harbour mouth. Weymouth does not have that, which has always restricted the size of vessel.

A new link-span which would accommodate a ship with a beam of 30 metres (which is maybe what Condor have in mind) would only be any use for catamarans of that size.
Any conventional ferry with a centreline of 15metres would be much too large to use Weymouth harbour anyway; anything smaller would require rafting to keep the ship in line.
If a link-span of that size were to be built it would obstruct the harbour entrance and impact on any other usage of berth No 1.

Small car carriers have used berth No1 in the 1980s. They used the ship's own side or diagonal ramp onto the quay wall.

[quote][p][bold]sandman223[/bold] wrote:
A new linkspan could also accomodate larger vessels such as cruise liners and bring much more to the town, have the council thought of this? Who said it has to be just for Condors use?[/p][/quote]Cruise ships do not need a link-span.
A link-span is used as a ramp to span the gap between the the bow or stern entry doors on a car ferry so that vehicles can get on and off.
Cruise ships do, however, need a port with sufficient deep water at and around the harbour mouth. Weymouth does not have that, which has always restricted the size of vessel.
A new link-span which would accommodate a ship with a beam of 30 metres (which is maybe what Condor have in mind) would only be any use for catamarans of that size.
Any conventional ferry with a centreline of 15metres would be much too large to use Weymouth harbour anyway; anything smaller would require rafting to keep the ship in line.
If a link-span of that size were to be built it would obstruct the harbour entrance and impact on any other usage of berth No 1.
Small car carriers have used berth No1 in the 1980s. They used the ship's own side or diagonal ramp onto the quay wall.X Old Bill

sandman223 wrote…

A new linkspan could also accomodate larger vessels such as cruise liners and bring much more to the town, have the council thought of this? Who said it has to be just for Condors use?

Cruise ships do not need a link-span.
A link-span is used as a ramp to span the gap between the the bow or stern entry doors on a car ferry so that vehicles can get on and off.
Cruise ships do, however, need a port with sufficient deep water at and around the harbour mouth. Weymouth does not have that, which has always restricted the size of vessel.

A new link-span which would accommodate a ship with a beam of 30 metres (which is maybe what Condor have in mind) would only be any use for catamarans of that size.
Any conventional ferry with a centreline of 15metres would be much too large to use Weymouth harbour anyway; anything smaller would require rafting to keep the ship in line.
If a link-span of that size were to be built it would obstruct the harbour entrance and impact on any other usage of berth No 1.

Small car carriers have used berth No1 in the 1980s. They used the ship's own side or diagonal ramp onto the quay wall.

Score: 1

sandman223
4:02pm Sun 20 Apr 14

X Old Bill wrote…

sandman223 wrote…

A new linkspan could also accomodate larger vessels such as cruise liners and bring much more to the town, have the council thought of this? Who said it has to be just for Condors use?

Cruise ships do not need a link-span.
A link-span is used as a ramp to span the gap between the the bow or stern entry doors on a car ferry so that vehicles can get on and off.
Cruise ships do, however, need a port with sufficient deep water at and around the harbour mouth. Weymouth does not have that, which has always restricted the size of vessel.

A new link-span which would accommodate a ship with a beam of 30 metres (which is maybe what Condor have in mind) would only be any use for catamarans of that size.
Any conventional ferry with a centreline of 15metres would be much too large to use Weymouth harbour anyway; anything smaller would require rafting to keep the ship in line.
If a link-span of that size were to be built it would obstruct the harbour entrance and impact on any other usage of berth No 1.

Small car carriers have used berth No1 in the 1980s. They used the ship's own side or diagonal ramp onto the quay wall.

Thankyou for your explanation of a linkspan, i am fully aware of its discription but thanks anyway!

Condors new proposed vessel would require dredging the harbour anyway so will accommodate deep water vessels.

Several other ferry companies use smaller vessels or similar size vessels that WOULD be able touse said linkspan or as u say could use the then redundant berth 1 span.

A cruise ship could discharge passengers and then anchor out in the bay until re-embarkation, this would restrict harbour use for a short while whilst discharging and then re-embarking, this would bring a much greater revenue for the council and local area.

speculate to acculilate and all that.....

[quote][p][bold]X Old Bill[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]sandman223[/bold] wrote:
A new linkspan could also accomodate larger vessels such as cruise liners and bring much more to the town, have the council thought of this? Who said it has to be just for Condors use?[/p][/quote]Cruise ships do not need a link-span.
A link-span is used as a ramp to span the gap between the the bow or stern entry doors on a car ferry so that vehicles can get on and off.
Cruise ships do, however, need a port with sufficient deep water at and around the harbour mouth. Weymouth does not have that, which has always restricted the size of vessel.
A new link-span which would accommodate a ship with a beam of 30 metres (which is maybe what Condor have in mind) would only be any use for catamarans of that size.
Any conventional ferry with a centreline of 15metres would be much too large to use Weymouth harbour anyway; anything smaller would require rafting to keep the ship in line.
If a link-span of that size were to be built it would obstruct the harbour entrance and impact on any other usage of berth No 1.
Small car carriers have used berth No1 in the 1980s. They used the ship's own side or diagonal ramp onto the quay wall.[/p][/quote]Thankyou for your explanation of a linkspan, i am fully aware of its discription but thanks anyway!
Condors new proposed vessel would require dredging the harbour anyway so will accommodate deep water vessels.
Several other ferry companies use smaller vessels or similar size vessels that WOULD be able touse said linkspan or as u say could use the then redundant berth 1 span.
A cruise ship could discharge passengers and then anchor out in the bay until re-embarkation, this would restrict harbour use for a short while whilst discharging and then re-embarking, this would bring a much greater revenue for the council and local area.
speculate to acculilate and all that.....sandman223

X Old Bill wrote…

sandman223 wrote…

A new linkspan could also accomodate larger vessels such as cruise liners and bring much more to the town, have the council thought of this? Who said it has to be just for Condors use?

Cruise ships do not need a link-span.
A link-span is used as a ramp to span the gap between the the bow or stern entry doors on a car ferry so that vehicles can get on and off.
Cruise ships do, however, need a port with sufficient deep water at and around the harbour mouth. Weymouth does not have that, which has always restricted the size of vessel.

A new link-span which would accommodate a ship with a beam of 30 metres (which is maybe what Condor have in mind) would only be any use for catamarans of that size.
Any conventional ferry with a centreline of 15metres would be much too large to use Weymouth harbour anyway; anything smaller would require rafting to keep the ship in line.
If a link-span of that size were to be built it would obstruct the harbour entrance and impact on any other usage of berth No 1.

Small car carriers have used berth No1 in the 1980s. They used the ship's own side or diagonal ramp onto the quay wall.

Thankyou for your explanation of a linkspan, i am fully aware of its discription but thanks anyway!

Condors new proposed vessel would require dredging the harbour anyway so will accommodate deep water vessels.

Several other ferry companies use smaller vessels or similar size vessels that WOULD be able touse said linkspan or as u say could use the then redundant berth 1 span.

A cruise ship could discharge passengers and then anchor out in the bay until re-embarkation, this would restrict harbour use for a short while whilst discharging and then re-embarking, this would bring a much greater revenue for the council and local area.

speculate to acculilate and all that.....

Score: 0

sandman223
4:34pm Sun 20 Apr 14

Woodgate wrote…

I'd be interested to see a proven analysis of actual, annual income to the WPBC area that is solely from Condor and its passengers. My guess is that many people sailing from/arriving at Weymouth probably drive straight on to other, more appealing, locations. Of course there are some local staff and support service benefits and I would like to see these retained and grown but I suspect the real value is exaggerated according to agendas, particularly given the costs of maintaining and modernising berthing facilities. Don't forget our clever Council got into bed with an over stretched Irish development co just as the market was collapsing and I recall they would have preferred Condor to go somewhere else (hard to sell top end flats with all that noise and traffic queuing on and off). The whole pavilion area should be re-planned by people who know what they're doing !

Totally agree with the final statement ....

The whole area certainly needs redeveloping.

[quote][p][bold]Woodgate[/bold] wrote:
I'd be interested to see a proven analysis of actual, annual income to the WPBC area that is solely from Condor and its passengers. My guess is that many people sailing from/arriving at Weymouth probably drive straight on to other, more appealing, locations. Of course there are some local staff and support service benefits and I would like to see these retained and grown but I suspect the real value is exaggerated according to agendas, particularly given the costs of maintaining and modernising berthing facilities. Don't forget our clever Council got into bed with an over stretched Irish development co just as the market was collapsing and I recall they would have preferred Condor to go somewhere else (hard to sell top end flats with all that noise and traffic queuing on and off). The whole pavilion area should be re-planned by people who know what they're doing ![/p][/quote]Totally agree with the final statement ....
The whole area certainly needs redeveloping.sandman223

Woodgate wrote…

I'd be interested to see a proven analysis of actual, annual income to the WPBC area that is solely from Condor and its passengers. My guess is that many people sailing from/arriving at Weymouth probably drive straight on to other, more appealing, locations. Of course there are some local staff and support service benefits and I would like to see these retained and grown but I suspect the real value is exaggerated according to agendas, particularly given the costs of maintaining and modernising berthing facilities. Don't forget our clever Council got into bed with an over stretched Irish development co just as the market was collapsing and I recall they would have preferred Condor to go somewhere else (hard to sell top end flats with all that noise and traffic queuing on and off). The whole pavilion area should be re-planned by people who know what they're doing !

Totally agree with the final statement ....

The whole area certainly needs redeveloping.

Score: 1

DignifiedAlsatian
4:54pm Sun 20 Apr 14

Perhaps if local businessman Peter Tizzard phoned the police about this the matter could be resolved to our satisfaction. Come on Peter, do your bit for Weymouth!

Perhaps if local businessman Peter Tizzard phoned the police about this the matter could be resolved to our satisfaction. Come on Peter, do your bit for Weymouth!DignifiedAlsatian

Perhaps if local businessman Peter Tizzard phoned the police about this the matter could be resolved to our satisfaction. Come on Peter, do your bit for Weymouth!

Score: 2

Get a grip
5:58pm Sun 20 Apr 14

cosmick wrote…

Get a grip wrote…

Jimmytheone wrote…

Can somebody please respond.
1. Was there or is there a signed 15 year legal contract in place Yes or No
2. How long has this confidential document which Mr Bruce revealed been hidden ?
3 Condor have paid a deposit on the new boat so it is coming fact how long has this fact been know by the relevant councillors.

Without political one upmanship which will come into it can somebody without waffle please answer the above Three questions.

Theses are the questions I ell be asking of anyone knocks on my door looking for my vote

What if the person knocking on your door is Not a standing councillor(a new face), or are you saying that you will only consider the existing faces.

If it is a new face I will ask then thier opinion on this mess?

[quote][p][bold]cosmick[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]Get a grip[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]Jimmytheone[/bold] wrote:
Can somebody please respond.
1. Was there or is there a signed 15 year legal contract in place Yes or No
2. How long has this confidential document which Mr Bruce revealed been hidden ?
3 Condor have paid a deposit on the new boat so it is coming fact how long has this fact been know by the relevant councillors.
Without political one upmanship which will come into it can somebody without waffle please answer the above Three questions.[/p][/quote]Theses are the questions I ell be asking of anyone knocks on my door looking for my vote[/p][/quote]What if the person knocking on your door is Not a standing councillor(a new face), or are you saying that you will only consider the existing faces.[/p][/quote]If it is a new face I will ask then thier opinion on this mess?Get a grip

cosmick wrote…

Get a grip wrote…

Jimmytheone wrote…

Can somebody please respond.
1. Was there or is there a signed 15 year legal contract in place Yes or No
2. How long has this confidential document which Mr Bruce revealed been hidden ?
3 Condor have paid a deposit on the new boat so it is coming fact how long has this fact been know by the relevant councillors.

Without political one upmanship which will come into it can somebody without waffle please answer the above Three questions.

Theses are the questions I ell be asking of anyone knocks on my door looking for my vote

What if the person knocking on your door is Not a standing councillor(a new face), or are you saying that you will only consider the existing faces.

If it is a new face I will ask then thier opinion on this mess?

Score: 0

Parkstreetshufle
12:27am Mon 21 Apr 14

sandman223 wrote…

Parkstreetshufle wrote…

sandman223 wrote…

Jimmytheone wrote…

Mr Sandman233 you like others quote figures of 7.7 million ibrought into the Weymouth economy . I ask again where have you &others dreamed up that figure ??from.When the ferry comes in there is traffic chaos along the Esplanade whilst they all drive out of town.Before sailing some passengers stay overnight before boarding granted but they are going on holiday they come to catch the ferry not spend the day shopping. Ask local business owners ( shops ) what they gain from Condor. The main financial benefit is the harbour dues. You also suggest WPBC invest the 10 million, the hard fact is they have to sell all their assetts now to plug the black hole.We are skint .

Tourist from the islands visiting and staying in Weymouth, taxi services, compamy vehicle rentals locally, staff wages many of whom will live in weymouth i suspect, as u have pointed out passengers staying (overnight at least), car parking for foot passengers, harbour dues, local restaurants, docking fees........ the list goes on..... thats where the 7.7mill that has been quoted by the echo several times, not saying that figure is correct but im sure it is a fair few million each year. Traffic choas when condor comes in?? its usually late nights, im pretty sure the traffic choas that you seem to be imagining is not due to condor.

Sorry, but u have to agree with the former poster. The council are right to consider this carefully, 10million against a very subjective return is not on. Let Poole have the condor. It's only a channel island service now anyway and I would argue it provides more of a service to the Islands than it does to Weymouth. They want the service - let them stump up some money if they want it that badly...

Please do some research before posting. The service is a daily service to the chamnel islands with connections to france and europe during the season. As many cars go over from the uk as come from the islands into the uk! A very subjective return?? guaranteed return of money more like.

I used the 'service' last week which is quite frankly a total waste of time, an I shall not be using it again.
It's earning is highly subjective. There's absolutely nothing to say that the entire business won't be mismanaged and take the council down with it. I want my tax money going into services - actual services here. The council is already struggling to meet its obligations let alone being £10,000,000 in the red on a shonky deal that 'might' work out.
If the council aren't being taken for suckers I'm a monkey's uncle.
Why does anyone want to go to Jersey? Or Gurnsey? unless they live there. I'm not paying for a boat service to the Channel Islands - it's as much use as an ashtray on a motorbike. It only benefits channel islanders.

[quote][p][bold]sandman223[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]Parkstreetshufle[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]sandman223[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Jimmytheone[/bold] wrote: Mr Sandman233 you like others quote figures of 7.7 million ibrought into the Weymouth economy . I ask again where have you &others dreamed up that figure ??from.When the ferry comes in there is traffic chaos along the Esplanade whilst they all drive out of town.Before sailing some passengers stay overnight before boarding granted but they are going on holiday they come to catch the ferry not spend the day shopping. Ask local business owners ( shops ) what they gain from Condor. The main financial benefit is the harbour dues. You also suggest WPBC invest the 10 million, the hard fact is they have to sell all their assetts now to plug the black hole.We are skint .[/p][/quote]Tourist from the islands visiting and staying in Weymouth, taxi services, compamy vehicle rentals locally, staff wages many of whom will live in weymouth i suspect, as u have pointed out passengers staying (overnight at least), car parking for foot passengers, harbour dues, local restaurants, docking fees........ the list goes on..... thats where the 7.7mill that has been quoted by the echo several times, not saying that figure is correct but im sure it is a fair few million each year. Traffic choas when condor comes in?? its usually late nights, im pretty sure the traffic choas that you seem to be imagining is not due to condor.[/p][/quote]Sorry, but u have to agree with the former poster. The council are right to consider this carefully, 10million against a very subjective return is not on. Let Poole have the condor. It's only a channel island service now anyway and I would argue it provides more of a service to the Islands than it does to Weymouth. They want the service - let them stump up some money if they want it that badly...[/p][/quote]Please do some research before posting. The service is a daily service to the chamnel islands with connections to france and europe during the season. As many cars go over from the uk as come from the islands into the uk! A very subjective return?? guaranteed return of money more like.[/p][/quote]I used the 'service' last week which is quite frankly a total waste of time, an I shall not be using it again.
It's earning is highly subjective. There's absolutely nothing to say that the entire business won't be mismanaged and take the council down with it. I want my tax money going into services - actual services here. The council is already struggling to meet its obligations let alone being £10,000,000 in the red on a shonky deal that 'might' work out.
If the council aren't being taken for suckers I'm a monkey's uncle.
Why does anyone want to go to Jersey? Or Gurnsey? unless they live there. I'm not paying for a boat service to the Channel Islands - it's as much use as an ashtray on a motorbike. It only benefits channel islanders.Parkstreetshufle

sandman223 wrote…

Parkstreetshufle wrote…

sandman223 wrote…

Jimmytheone wrote…

Mr Sandman233 you like others quote figures of 7.7 million ibrought into the Weymouth economy . I ask again where have you &others dreamed up that figure ??from.When the ferry comes in there is traffic chaos along the Esplanade whilst they all drive out of town.Before sailing some passengers stay overnight before boarding granted but they are going on holiday they come to catch the ferry not spend the day shopping. Ask local business owners ( shops ) what they gain from Condor. The main financial benefit is the harbour dues. You also suggest WPBC invest the 10 million, the hard fact is they have to sell all their assetts now to plug the black hole.We are skint .

Tourist from the islands visiting and staying in Weymouth, taxi services, compamy vehicle rentals locally, staff wages many of whom will live in weymouth i suspect, as u have pointed out passengers staying (overnight at least), car parking for foot passengers, harbour dues, local restaurants, docking fees........ the list goes on..... thats where the 7.7mill that has been quoted by the echo several times, not saying that figure is correct but im sure it is a fair few million each year. Traffic choas when condor comes in?? its usually late nights, im pretty sure the traffic choas that you seem to be imagining is not due to condor.

Sorry, but u have to agree with the former poster. The council are right to consider this carefully, 10million against a very subjective return is not on. Let Poole have the condor. It's only a channel island service now anyway and I would argue it provides more of a service to the Islands than it does to Weymouth. They want the service - let them stump up some money if they want it that badly...

Please do some research before posting. The service is a daily service to the chamnel islands with connections to france and europe during the season. As many cars go over from the uk as come from the islands into the uk! A very subjective return?? guaranteed return of money more like.

I used the 'service' last week which is quite frankly a total waste of time, an I shall not be using it again.
It's earning is highly subjective. There's absolutely nothing to say that the entire business won't be mismanaged and take the council down with it. I want my tax money going into services - actual services here. The council is already struggling to meet its obligations let alone being £10,000,000 in the red on a shonky deal that 'might' work out.
If the council aren't being taken for suckers I'm a monkey's uncle.
Why does anyone want to go to Jersey? Or Gurnsey? unless they live there. I'm not paying for a boat service to the Channel Islands - it's as much use as an ashtray on a motorbike. It only benefits channel islanders.

Score: 0

JamesYoung
7:31am Mon 21 Apr 14

sandman223 wrote…

arlbergbahn wrote…

So basically, as usual, it's all the Council's fault as usual, and the ferry company saying "you spent 4 mill for our benefit last year, now we'd like you to spend another 10 mill purely for our benefit, which isn't even necessary anyway because it'd be perfectly possible for this new ferry to use the existing facility", that's fine and perfectly justified because as we know Weymouth & Portland Borough Council are a bunch of muppets, so they're naturally always to blame for everything, even attempts at extortion by monopolistic private companies? So extortion is fine when a bunch of muppets are the ones being extorted?

lets remember it WAS the councils responsibilty to do bi annual checks on the harbour set up which wasnt done, the 4 million spent to repair the wall was due to the councils mistake of not carrying out checks as they were meant to! They did not spent it as a favour to condor, rather a cover up for the councils mistake!

I have also seen comments on here asking why condor dont use portland, well we would still be in the same situation, no linkspan at portland! no terminal, poor traffic routes etc.....

The 10 million for the new berth would be recouped within 2 years within the local economy as condor reportedly brings in 7.7 mill a year to local economy already!

The council should invest the money if the want any future in weymouth!

You miss one small point here.
The council wants to spend £10m to earn £7m a year.
Where does most of that £7m end up?
In the hands of tourist business owners (their profits, from your taxes).
Very little of it finds its way back into government coffers.
Therefore the payback period is probably 10 years or more. Will Condor be prepared to sign for that long? If not, then this is not a viable investment.

[quote][p][bold]sandman223[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]arlbergbahn[/bold] wrote:
So basically, as usual, it's all the Council's fault as usual, and the ferry company saying "you spent 4 mill for our benefit last year, now we'd like you to spend another 10 mill purely for our benefit, which isn't even necessary anyway because it'd be perfectly possible for this new ferry to use the existing facility", that's fine and perfectly justified because as we know Weymouth & Portland Borough Council are a bunch of muppets, so they're naturally always to blame for everything, even attempts at extortion by monopolistic private companies? So extortion is fine when a bunch of muppets are the ones being extorted?[/p][/quote]lets remember it WAS the councils responsibilty to do bi annual checks on the harbour set up which wasnt done, the 4 million spent to repair the wall was due to the councils mistake of not carrying out checks as they were meant to! They did not spent it as a favour to condor, rather a cover up for the councils mistake!
I have also seen comments on here asking why condor dont use portland, well we would still be in the same situation, no linkspan at portland! no terminal, poor traffic routes etc.....
The 10 million for the new berth would be recouped within 2 years within the local economy as condor reportedly brings in 7.7 mill a year to local economy already!
The council should invest the money if the want any future in weymouth![/p][/quote]You miss one small point here.
The council wants to spend £10m to earn £7m a year.
Where does most of that £7m end up?
In the hands of tourist business owners (their profits, from your taxes).
Very little of it finds its way back into government coffers.
Therefore the payback period is probably 10 years or more. Will Condor be prepared to sign for that long? If not, then this is not a viable investment.JamesYoung

sandman223 wrote…

arlbergbahn wrote…

So basically, as usual, it's all the Council's fault as usual, and the ferry company saying "you spent 4 mill for our benefit last year, now we'd like you to spend another 10 mill purely for our benefit, which isn't even necessary anyway because it'd be perfectly possible for this new ferry to use the existing facility", that's fine and perfectly justified because as we know Weymouth & Portland Borough Council are a bunch of muppets, so they're naturally always to blame for everything, even attempts at extortion by monopolistic private companies? So extortion is fine when a bunch of muppets are the ones being extorted?

lets remember it WAS the councils responsibilty to do bi annual checks on the harbour set up which wasnt done, the 4 million spent to repair the wall was due to the councils mistake of not carrying out checks as they were meant to! They did not spent it as a favour to condor, rather a cover up for the councils mistake!

I have also seen comments on here asking why condor dont use portland, well we would still be in the same situation, no linkspan at portland! no terminal, poor traffic routes etc.....

The 10 million for the new berth would be recouped within 2 years within the local economy as condor reportedly brings in 7.7 mill a year to local economy already!

The council should invest the money if the want any future in weymouth!

You miss one small point here.
The council wants to spend £10m to earn £7m a year.
Where does most of that £7m end up?
In the hands of tourist business owners (their profits, from your taxes).
Very little of it finds its way back into government coffers.
Therefore the payback period is probably 10 years or more. Will Condor be prepared to sign for that long? If not, then this is not a viable investment.

Score: 2

arlbergbahn
9:54am Mon 21 Apr 14

sandman223 wrote…

A new linkspan could also accomodate larger vessels such as cruise liners and bring much more to the town, have the council thought of this? Who said it has to be just for Condors use?

Well, cruise ships wouldn't need to use a linkspan, and only very modestly sized cruise ships would be able to use Weymouth harbour in any case, and right next door cruise ships of virtually any size can be accommodated at Portland.

[quote][p][bold]sandman223[/bold] wrote:
A new linkspan could also accomodate larger vessels such as cruise liners and bring much more to the town, have the council thought of this? Who said it has to be just for Condors use?[/p][/quote]Well, cruise ships wouldn't need to use a linkspan, and only very modestly sized cruise ships would be able to use Weymouth harbour in any case, and right next door cruise ships of virtually any size can be accommodated at Portland.arlbergbahn

sandman223 wrote…

A new linkspan could also accomodate larger vessels such as cruise liners and bring much more to the town, have the council thought of this? Who said it has to be just for Condors use?

Well, cruise ships wouldn't need to use a linkspan, and only very modestly sized cruise ships would be able to use Weymouth harbour in any case, and right next door cruise ships of virtually any size can be accommodated at Portland.

Score: 3

arlbergbahn
9:59am Mon 21 Apr 14

Woodgate wrote…

I'd be interested to see a proven analysis of actual, annual income to the WPBC area that is solely from Condor and its passengers. My guess is that many people sailing from/arriving at Weymouth probably drive straight on to other, more appealing, locations. Of course there are some local staff and support service benefits and I would like to see these retained and grown but I suspect the real value is exaggerated according to agendas, particularly given the costs of maintaining and modernising berthing facilities. Don't forget our clever Council got into bed with an over stretched Irish development co just as the market was collapsing and I recall they would have preferred Condor to go somewhere else (hard to sell top end flats with all that noise and traffic queuing on and off). The whole pavilion area should be re-planned by people who know what they're doing !

why the snide remark about "other, more appealing, locations"? Why do everywhere local down all the time? They're probably just on their way home, not heading off to "more appealing" locations.

[quote][p][bold]Woodgate[/bold] wrote:
I'd be interested to see a proven analysis of actual, annual income to the WPBC area that is solely from Condor and its passengers. My guess is that many people sailing from/arriving at Weymouth probably drive straight on to other, more appealing, locations. Of course there are some local staff and support service benefits and I would like to see these retained and grown but I suspect the real value is exaggerated according to agendas, particularly given the costs of maintaining and modernising berthing facilities. Don't forget our clever Council got into bed with an over stretched Irish development co just as the market was collapsing and I recall they would have preferred Condor to go somewhere else (hard to sell top end flats with all that noise and traffic queuing on and off). The whole pavilion area should be re-planned by people who know what they're doing ![/p][/quote]why the snide remark about "other, more appealing, locations"? Why do everywhere local down all the time? They're probably just on their way home, not heading off to "more appealing" locations.arlbergbahn

Woodgate wrote…

I'd be interested to see a proven analysis of actual, annual income to the WPBC area that is solely from Condor and its passengers. My guess is that many people sailing from/arriving at Weymouth probably drive straight on to other, more appealing, locations. Of course there are some local staff and support service benefits and I would like to see these retained and grown but I suspect the real value is exaggerated according to agendas, particularly given the costs of maintaining and modernising berthing facilities. Don't forget our clever Council got into bed with an over stretched Irish development co just as the market was collapsing and I recall they would have preferred Condor to go somewhere else (hard to sell top end flats with all that noise and traffic queuing on and off). The whole pavilion area should be re-planned by people who know what they're doing !

why the snide remark about "other, more appealing, locations"? Why do everywhere local down all the time? They're probably just on their way home, not heading off to "more appealing" locations.

Score: -2

arlbergbahn
10:04am Mon 21 Apr 14

Parkstreetshufle wrote…

sandman223 wrote…

Parkstreetshufle wrote…

sandman223 wrote…

Jimmytheone wrote…

Mr Sandman233 you like others quote figures of 7.7 million ibrought into the Weymouth economy . I ask again where have you &others dreamed up that figure ??from.When the ferry comes in there is traffic chaos along the Esplanade whilst they all drive out of town.Before sailing some passengers stay overnight before boarding granted but they are going on holiday they come to catch the ferry not spend the day shopping. Ask local business owners ( shops ) what they gain from Condor. The main financial benefit is the harbour dues. You also suggest WPBC invest the 10 million, the hard fact is they have to sell all their assetts now to plug the black hole.We are skint .

Tourist from the islands visiting and staying in Weymouth, taxi services, compamy vehicle rentals locally, staff wages many of whom will live in weymouth i suspect, as u have pointed out passengers staying (overnight at least), car parking for foot passengers, harbour dues, local restaurants, docking fees........ the list goes on..... thats where the 7.7mill that has been quoted by the echo several times, not saying that figure is correct but im sure it is a fair few million each year. Traffic choas when condor comes in?? its usually late nights, im pretty sure the traffic choas that you seem to be imagining is not due to condor.

Sorry, but u have to agree with the former poster. The council are right to consider this carefully, 10million against a very subjective return is not on. Let Poole have the condor. It's only a channel island service now anyway and I would argue it provides more of a service to the Islands than it does to Weymouth. They want the service - let them stump up some money if they want it that badly...

Please do some research before posting. The service is a daily service to the chamnel islands with connections to france and europe during the season. As many cars go over from the uk as come from the islands into the uk! A very subjective return?? guaranteed return of money more like.

I used the 'service' last week which is quite frankly a total waste of time, an I shall not be using it again.
It's earning is highly subjective. There's absolutely nothing to say that the entire business won't be mismanaged and take the council down with it. I want my tax money going into services - actual services here. The council is already struggling to meet its obligations let alone being £10,000,000 in the red on a shonky deal that 'might' work out.
If the council aren't being taken for suckers I'm a monkey's uncle.
Why does anyone want to go to Jersey? Or Gurnsey? unless they live there. I'm not paying for a boat service to the Channel Islands - it's as much use as an ashtray on a motorbike. It only benefits channel islanders.

What i find most amusing about all these comments since this BOMBSHELL broke is the number of rants about the Channel Islands. What exactly do you dislike about them?

[quote][p][bold]Parkstreetshufle[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]sandman223[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]Parkstreetshufle[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]sandman223[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Jimmytheone[/bold] wrote: Mr Sandman233 you like others quote figures of 7.7 million ibrought into the Weymouth economy . I ask again where have you &others dreamed up that figure ??from.When the ferry comes in there is traffic chaos along the Esplanade whilst they all drive out of town.Before sailing some passengers stay overnight before boarding granted but they are going on holiday they come to catch the ferry not spend the day shopping. Ask local business owners ( shops ) what they gain from Condor. The main financial benefit is the harbour dues. You also suggest WPBC invest the 10 million, the hard fact is they have to sell all their assetts now to plug the black hole.We are skint .[/p][/quote]Tourist from the islands visiting and staying in Weymouth, taxi services, compamy vehicle rentals locally, staff wages many of whom will live in weymouth i suspect, as u have pointed out passengers staying (overnight at least), car parking for foot passengers, harbour dues, local restaurants, docking fees........ the list goes on..... thats where the 7.7mill that has been quoted by the echo several times, not saying that figure is correct but im sure it is a fair few million each year. Traffic choas when condor comes in?? its usually late nights, im pretty sure the traffic choas that you seem to be imagining is not due to condor.[/p][/quote]Sorry, but u have to agree with the former poster. The council are right to consider this carefully, 10million against a very subjective return is not on. Let Poole have the condor. It's only a channel island service now anyway and I would argue it provides more of a service to the Islands than it does to Weymouth. They want the service - let them stump up some money if they want it that badly...[/p][/quote]Please do some research before posting. The service is a daily service to the chamnel islands with connections to france and europe during the season. As many cars go over from the uk as come from the islands into the uk! A very subjective return?? guaranteed return of money more like.[/p][/quote]I used the 'service' last week which is quite frankly a total waste of time, an I shall not be using it again.
It's earning is highly subjective. There's absolutely nothing to say that the entire business won't be mismanaged and take the council down with it. I want my tax money going into services - actual services here. The council is already struggling to meet its obligations let alone being £10,000,000 in the red on a shonky deal that 'might' work out.
If the council aren't being taken for suckers I'm a monkey's uncle.
Why does anyone want to go to Jersey? Or Gurnsey? unless they live there. I'm not paying for a boat service to the Channel Islands - it's as much use as an ashtray on a motorbike. It only benefits channel islanders.[/p][/quote]What i find most amusing about all these comments since this BOMBSHELL broke is the number of rants about the Channel Islands. What exactly do you dislike about them?arlbergbahn

Parkstreetshufle wrote…

sandman223 wrote…

Parkstreetshufle wrote…

sandman223 wrote…

Jimmytheone wrote…

Mr Sandman233 you like others quote figures of 7.7 million ibrought into the Weymouth economy . I ask again where have you &others dreamed up that figure ??from.When the ferry comes in there is traffic chaos along the Esplanade whilst they all drive out of town.Before sailing some passengers stay overnight before boarding granted but they are going on holiday they come to catch the ferry not spend the day shopping. Ask local business owners ( shops ) what they gain from Condor. The main financial benefit is the harbour dues. You also suggest WPBC invest the 10 million, the hard fact is they have to sell all their assetts now to plug the black hole.We are skint .

Tourist from the islands visiting and staying in Weymouth, taxi services, compamy vehicle rentals locally, staff wages many of whom will live in weymouth i suspect, as u have pointed out passengers staying (overnight at least), car parking for foot passengers, harbour dues, local restaurants, docking fees........ the list goes on..... thats where the 7.7mill that has been quoted by the echo several times, not saying that figure is correct but im sure it is a fair few million each year. Traffic choas when condor comes in?? its usually late nights, im pretty sure the traffic choas that you seem to be imagining is not due to condor.

Sorry, but u have to agree with the former poster. The council are right to consider this carefully, 10million against a very subjective return is not on. Let Poole have the condor. It's only a channel island service now anyway and I would argue it provides more of a service to the Islands than it does to Weymouth. They want the service - let them stump up some money if they want it that badly...

Please do some research before posting. The service is a daily service to the chamnel islands with connections to france and europe during the season. As many cars go over from the uk as come from the islands into the uk! A very subjective return?? guaranteed return of money more like.

I used the 'service' last week which is quite frankly a total waste of time, an I shall not be using it again.
It's earning is highly subjective. There's absolutely nothing to say that the entire business won't be mismanaged and take the council down with it. I want my tax money going into services - actual services here. The council is already struggling to meet its obligations let alone being £10,000,000 in the red on a shonky deal that 'might' work out.
If the council aren't being taken for suckers I'm a monkey's uncle.
Why does anyone want to go to Jersey? Or Gurnsey? unless they live there. I'm not paying for a boat service to the Channel Islands - it's as much use as an ashtray on a motorbike. It only benefits channel islanders.

What i find most amusing about all these comments since this BOMBSHELL broke is the number of rants about the Channel Islands. What exactly do you dislike about them?

Score: -2

siriem
11:15am Tue 22 Apr 14

JamesYoung wrote…

sandman223 wrote…

arlbergbahn wrote…

So basically, as usual, it's all the Council's fault as usual, and the ferry company saying "you spent 4 mill for our benefit last year, now we'd like you to spend another 10 mill purely for our benefit, which isn't even necessary anyway because it'd be perfectly possible for this new ferry to use the existing facility", that's fine and perfectly justified because as we know Weymouth & Portland Borough Council are a bunch of muppets, so they're naturally always to blame for everything, even attempts at extortion by monopolistic private companies? So extortion is fine when a bunch of muppets are the ones being extorted?

lets remember it WAS the councils responsibilty to do bi annual checks on the harbour set up which wasnt done, the 4 million spent to repair the wall was due to the councils mistake of not carrying out checks as they were meant to! They did not spent it as a favour to condor, rather a cover up for the councils mistake!

I have also seen comments on here asking why condor dont use portland, well we would still be in the same situation, no linkspan at portland! no terminal, poor traffic routes etc.....

The 10 million for the new berth would be recouped within 2 years within the local economy as condor reportedly brings in 7.7 mill a year to local economy already!

The council should invest the money if the want any future in weymouth!

You miss one small point here.
The council wants to spend £10m to earn £7m a year.
Where does most of that £7m end up?
In the hands of tourist business owners (their profits, from your taxes).
Very little of it finds its way back into government coffers.
Therefore the payback period is probably 10 years or more. Will Condor be prepared to sign for that long? If not, then this is not a viable investment.

Of course those "tourist business owners" spend money locally supporting other businesses that are not necessarily tourist orientated. They employ local people thereby providing incomes that are also spent locally. They pay business rates and council taxes if those businesses are residential. So by your reasoning that £7.7 million that only goes to those tourist business owners was lost, I think the knock on effect would be huge and disastrous.

[quote][p][bold]JamesYoung[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]sandman223[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]arlbergbahn[/bold] wrote:
So basically, as usual, it's all the Council's fault as usual, and the ferry company saying "you spent 4 mill for our benefit last year, now we'd like you to spend another 10 mill purely for our benefit, which isn't even necessary anyway because it'd be perfectly possible for this new ferry to use the existing facility", that's fine and perfectly justified because as we know Weymouth & Portland Borough Council are a bunch of muppets, so they're naturally always to blame for everything, even attempts at extortion by monopolistic private companies? So extortion is fine when a bunch of muppets are the ones being extorted?[/p][/quote]lets remember it WAS the councils responsibilty to do bi annual checks on the harbour set up which wasnt done, the 4 million spent to repair the wall was due to the councils mistake of not carrying out checks as they were meant to! They did not spent it as a favour to condor, rather a cover up for the councils mistake!
I have also seen comments on here asking why condor dont use portland, well we would still be in the same situation, no linkspan at portland! no terminal, poor traffic routes etc.....
The 10 million for the new berth would be recouped within 2 years within the local economy as condor reportedly brings in 7.7 mill a year to local economy already!
The council should invest the money if the want any future in weymouth![/p][/quote]You miss one small point here.
The council wants to spend £10m to earn £7m a year.
Where does most of that £7m end up?
In the hands of tourist business owners (their profits, from your taxes).
Very little of it finds its way back into government coffers.
Therefore the payback period is probably 10 years or more. Will Condor be prepared to sign for that long? If not, then this is not a viable investment.[/p][/quote]Of course those "tourist business owners" spend money locally supporting other businesses that are not necessarily tourist orientated. They employ local people thereby providing incomes that are also spent locally. They pay business rates and council taxes if those businesses are residential. So by your reasoning that £7.7 million that only goes to those tourist business owners was lost, I think the knock on effect would be huge and disastrous.siriem

JamesYoung wrote…

sandman223 wrote…

arlbergbahn wrote…

So basically, as usual, it's all the Council's fault as usual, and the ferry company saying "you spent 4 mill for our benefit last year, now we'd like you to spend another 10 mill purely for our benefit, which isn't even necessary anyway because it'd be perfectly possible for this new ferry to use the existing facility", that's fine and perfectly justified because as we know Weymouth & Portland Borough Council are a bunch of muppets, so they're naturally always to blame for everything, even attempts at extortion by monopolistic private companies? So extortion is fine when a bunch of muppets are the ones being extorted?

lets remember it WAS the councils responsibilty to do bi annual checks on the harbour set up which wasnt done, the 4 million spent to repair the wall was due to the councils mistake of not carrying out checks as they were meant to! They did not spent it as a favour to condor, rather a cover up for the councils mistake!

I have also seen comments on here asking why condor dont use portland, well we would still be in the same situation, no linkspan at portland! no terminal, poor traffic routes etc.....

The 10 million for the new berth would be recouped within 2 years within the local economy as condor reportedly brings in 7.7 mill a year to local economy already!

The council should invest the money if the want any future in weymouth!

You miss one small point here.
The council wants to spend £10m to earn £7m a year.
Where does most of that £7m end up?
In the hands of tourist business owners (their profits, from your taxes).
Very little of it finds its way back into government coffers.
Therefore the payback period is probably 10 years or more. Will Condor be prepared to sign for that long? If not, then this is not a viable investment.

Of course those "tourist business owners" spend money locally supporting other businesses that are not necessarily tourist orientated. They employ local people thereby providing incomes that are also spent locally. They pay business rates and council taxes if those businesses are residential. So by your reasoning that £7.7 million that only goes to those tourist business owners was lost, I think the knock on effect would be huge and disastrous.

Score: 0

siriem
11:23am Tue 22 Apr 14

siriem wrote…

JamesYoung wrote…

sandman223 wrote…

arlbergbahn wrote…

So basically, as usual, it's all the Council's fault as usual, and the ferry company saying "you spent 4 mill for our benefit last year, now we'd like you to spend another 10 mill purely for our benefit, which isn't even necessary anyway because it'd be perfectly possible for this new ferry to use the existing facility", that's fine and perfectly justified because as we know Weymouth & Portland Borough Council are a bunch of muppets, so they're naturally always to blame for everything, even attempts at extortion by monopolistic private companies? So extortion is fine when a bunch of muppets are the ones being extorted?

lets remember it WAS the councils responsibilty to do bi annual checks on the harbour set up which wasnt done, the 4 million spent to repair the wall was due to the councils mistake of not carrying out checks as they were meant to! They did not spent it as a favour to condor, rather a cover up for the councils mistake!

I have also seen comments on here asking why condor dont use portland, well we would still be in the same situation, no linkspan at portland! no terminal, poor traffic routes etc.....

The 10 million for the new berth would be recouped within 2 years within the local economy as condor reportedly brings in 7.7 mill a year to local economy already!

The council should invest the money if the want any future in weymouth!

You miss one small point here.
The council wants to spend £10m to earn £7m a year.
Where does most of that £7m end up?
In the hands of tourist business owners (their profits, from your taxes).
Very little of it finds its way back into government coffers.
Therefore the payback period is probably 10 years or more. Will Condor be prepared to sign for that long? If not, then this is not a viable investment.

Of course those "tourist business owners" spend money locally supporting other businesses that are not necessarily tourist orientated. They employ local people thereby providing incomes that are also spent locally. They pay business rates and council taxes if those businesses are residential. So by your reasoning that £7.7 million that only goes to those tourist business owners was lost, I think the knock on effect would be huge and disastrous.

I forgot to mention that these "tourist business owners" or at least this "tourist business" owner uses local tradesman for flooring, decorating, plumbing & furnishing. I use local garages for vehicle maintenance, I eat in local restaurants, drink in local pubs. In fact the very nature of my business means I rarely leave Weymouth at all. And there are a lot of people in the same business as me - and our money is pretty much spent the same way. So I think you'll find that quite a lot of that £7.7 million ends up back in the local economy even if it is vis an indirect route.

[quote][p][bold]siriem[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]JamesYoung[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]sandman223[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]arlbergbahn[/bold] wrote:
So basically, as usual, it's all the Council's fault as usual, and the ferry company saying "you spent 4 mill for our benefit last year, now we'd like you to spend another 10 mill purely for our benefit, which isn't even necessary anyway because it'd be perfectly possible for this new ferry to use the existing facility", that's fine and perfectly justified because as we know Weymouth & Portland Borough Council are a bunch of muppets, so they're naturally always to blame for everything, even attempts at extortion by monopolistic private companies? So extortion is fine when a bunch of muppets are the ones being extorted?[/p][/quote]lets remember it WAS the councils responsibilty to do bi annual checks on the harbour set up which wasnt done, the 4 million spent to repair the wall was due to the councils mistake of not carrying out checks as they were meant to! They did not spent it as a favour to condor, rather a cover up for the councils mistake!
I have also seen comments on here asking why condor dont use portland, well we would still be in the same situation, no linkspan at portland! no terminal, poor traffic routes etc.....
The 10 million for the new berth would be recouped within 2 years within the local economy as condor reportedly brings in 7.7 mill a year to local economy already!
The council should invest the money if the want any future in weymouth![/p][/quote]You miss one small point here.
The council wants to spend £10m to earn £7m a year.
Where does most of that £7m end up?
In the hands of tourist business owners (their profits, from your taxes).
Very little of it finds its way back into government coffers.
Therefore the payback period is probably 10 years or more. Will Condor be prepared to sign for that long? If not, then this is not a viable investment.[/p][/quote]Of course those "tourist business owners" spend money locally supporting other businesses that are not necessarily tourist orientated. They employ local people thereby providing incomes that are also spent locally. They pay business rates and council taxes if those businesses are residential. So by your reasoning that £7.7 million that only goes to those tourist business owners was lost, I think the knock on effect would be huge and disastrous.[/p][/quote]I forgot to mention that these "tourist business owners" or at least this "tourist business" owner uses local tradesman for flooring, decorating, plumbing & furnishing. I use local garages for vehicle maintenance, I eat in local restaurants, drink in local pubs. In fact the very nature of my business means I rarely leave Weymouth at all. And there are a lot of people in the same business as me - and our money is pretty much spent the same way. So I think you'll find that quite a lot of that £7.7 million ends up back in the local economy even if it is vis an indirect route.siriem

siriem wrote…

JamesYoung wrote…

sandman223 wrote…

arlbergbahn wrote…

So basically, as usual, it's all the Council's fault as usual, and the ferry company saying "you spent 4 mill for our benefit last year, now we'd like you to spend another 10 mill purely for our benefit, which isn't even necessary anyway because it'd be perfectly possible for this new ferry to use the existing facility", that's fine and perfectly justified because as we know Weymouth & Portland Borough Council are a bunch of muppets, so they're naturally always to blame for everything, even attempts at extortion by monopolistic private companies? So extortion is fine when a bunch of muppets are the ones being extorted?

lets remember it WAS the councils responsibilty to do bi annual checks on the harbour set up which wasnt done, the 4 million spent to repair the wall was due to the councils mistake of not carrying out checks as they were meant to! They did not spent it as a favour to condor, rather a cover up for the councils mistake!

I have also seen comments on here asking why condor dont use portland, well we would still be in the same situation, no linkspan at portland! no terminal, poor traffic routes etc.....

The 10 million for the new berth would be recouped within 2 years within the local economy as condor reportedly brings in 7.7 mill a year to local economy already!

The council should invest the money if the want any future in weymouth!

You miss one small point here.
The council wants to spend £10m to earn £7m a year.
Where does most of that £7m end up?
In the hands of tourist business owners (their profits, from your taxes).
Very little of it finds its way back into government coffers.
Therefore the payback period is probably 10 years or more. Will Condor be prepared to sign for that long? If not, then this is not a viable investment.

Of course those "tourist business owners" spend money locally supporting other businesses that are not necessarily tourist orientated. They employ local people thereby providing incomes that are also spent locally. They pay business rates and council taxes if those businesses are residential. So by your reasoning that £7.7 million that only goes to those tourist business owners was lost, I think the knock on effect would be huge and disastrous.

I forgot to mention that these "tourist business owners" or at least this "tourist business" owner uses local tradesman for flooring, decorating, plumbing & furnishing. I use local garages for vehicle maintenance, I eat in local restaurants, drink in local pubs. In fact the very nature of my business means I rarely leave Weymouth at all. And there are a lot of people in the same business as me - and our money is pretty much spent the same way. So I think you'll find that quite a lot of that £7.7 million ends up back in the local economy even if it is vis an indirect route.

Score: 0

JamesYoung
11:58am Tue 22 Apr 14

siriem wrote…

siriem wrote…

JamesYoung wrote…

sandman223 wrote…

arlbergbahn wrote…

So basically, as usual, it's all the Council's fault as usual, and the ferry company saying "you spent 4 mill for our benefit last year, now we'd like you to spend another 10 mill purely for our benefit, which isn't even necessary anyway because it'd be perfectly possible for this new ferry to use the existing facility", that's fine and perfectly justified because as we know Weymouth & Portland Borough Council are a bunch of muppets, so they're naturally always to blame for everything, even attempts at extortion by monopolistic private companies? So extortion is fine when a bunch of muppets are the ones being extorted?

lets remember it WAS the councils responsibilty to do bi annual checks on the harbour set up which wasnt done, the 4 million spent to repair the wall was due to the councils mistake of not carrying out checks as they were meant to! They did not spent it as a favour to condor, rather a cover up for the councils mistake!

I have also seen comments on here asking why condor dont use portland, well we would still be in the same situation, no linkspan at portland! no terminal, poor traffic routes etc.....

The 10 million for the new berth would be recouped within 2 years within the local economy as condor reportedly brings in 7.7 mill a year to local economy already!

The council should invest the money if the want any future in weymouth!

You miss one small point here.
The council wants to spend £10m to earn £7m a year.
Where does most of that £7m end up?
In the hands of tourist business owners (their profits, from your taxes).
Very little of it finds its way back into government coffers.
Therefore the payback period is probably 10 years or more. Will Condor be prepared to sign for that long? If not, then this is not a viable investment.

Of course those "tourist business owners" spend money locally supporting other businesses that are not necessarily tourist orientated. They employ local people thereby providing incomes that are also spent locally. They pay business rates and council taxes if those businesses are residential. So by your reasoning that £7.7 million that only goes to those tourist business owners was lost, I think the knock on effect would be huge and disastrous.

I forgot to mention that these "tourist business owners" or at least this "tourist business" owner uses local tradesman for flooring, decorating, plumbing & furnishing. I use local garages for vehicle maintenance, I eat in local restaurants, drink in local pubs. In fact the very nature of my business means I rarely leave Weymouth at all. And there are a lot of people in the same business as me - and our money is pretty much spent the same way. So I think you'll find that quite a lot of that £7.7 million ends up back in the local economy even if it is vis an indirect route.

Nothing you have written contradicts my point, which is that most of the money ends up in private trousers (you can call that "local economy" if you like).
So in judging the return on investment, the council should only be considering the return that "government plc" gets back in its pockets.
I'd guess this is 10-20% of the quoted £7m and would include corporation tax, vat, business rates and, arguably, the savings made from benefits that would otherwise be paid to people who end up out of work as a consequence. I say arguably because i quite often here it trotted out that if businesses make more money, they'll employ more people. However, hiring decisions are made based on workload and not profit.

[quote][p][bold]siriem[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]siriem[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]JamesYoung[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]sandman223[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]arlbergbahn[/bold] wrote:
So basically, as usual, it's all the Council's fault as usual, and the ferry company saying "you spent 4 mill for our benefit last year, now we'd like you to spend another 10 mill purely for our benefit, which isn't even necessary anyway because it'd be perfectly possible for this new ferry to use the existing facility", that's fine and perfectly justified because as we know Weymouth & Portland Borough Council are a bunch of muppets, so they're naturally always to blame for everything, even attempts at extortion by monopolistic private companies? So extortion is fine when a bunch of muppets are the ones being extorted?[/p][/quote]lets remember it WAS the councils responsibilty to do bi annual checks on the harbour set up which wasnt done, the 4 million spent to repair the wall was due to the councils mistake of not carrying out checks as they were meant to! They did not spent it as a favour to condor, rather a cover up for the councils mistake!
I have also seen comments on here asking why condor dont use portland, well we would still be in the same situation, no linkspan at portland! no terminal, poor traffic routes etc.....
The 10 million for the new berth would be recouped within 2 years within the local economy as condor reportedly brings in 7.7 mill a year to local economy already!
The council should invest the money if the want any future in weymouth![/p][/quote]You miss one small point here.
The council wants to spend £10m to earn £7m a year.
Where does most of that £7m end up?
In the hands of tourist business owners (their profits, from your taxes).
Very little of it finds its way back into government coffers.
Therefore the payback period is probably 10 years or more. Will Condor be prepared to sign for that long? If not, then this is not a viable investment.[/p][/quote]Of course those "tourist business owners" spend money locally supporting other businesses that are not necessarily tourist orientated. They employ local people thereby providing incomes that are also spent locally. They pay business rates and council taxes if those businesses are residential. So by your reasoning that £7.7 million that only goes to those tourist business owners was lost, I think the knock on effect would be huge and disastrous.[/p][/quote]I forgot to mention that these "tourist business owners" or at least this "tourist business" owner uses local tradesman for flooring, decorating, plumbing & furnishing. I use local garages for vehicle maintenance, I eat in local restaurants, drink in local pubs. In fact the very nature of my business means I rarely leave Weymouth at all. And there are a lot of people in the same business as me - and our money is pretty much spent the same way. So I think you'll find that quite a lot of that £7.7 million ends up back in the local economy even if it is vis an indirect route.[/p][/quote]Nothing you have written contradicts my point, which is that most of the money ends up in private trousers (you can call that "local economy" if you like).
So in judging the return on investment, the council should only be considering the return that "government plc" gets back in its pockets.
I'd guess this is 10-20% of the quoted £7m and would include corporation tax, vat, business rates and, arguably, the savings made from benefits that would otherwise be paid to people who end up out of work as a consequence. I say arguably because i quite often here it trotted out that if businesses make more money, they'll employ more people. However, hiring decisions are made based on workload and not profit.JamesYoung

siriem wrote…

siriem wrote…

JamesYoung wrote…

sandman223 wrote…

arlbergbahn wrote…

So basically, as usual, it's all the Council's fault as usual, and the ferry company saying "you spent 4 mill for our benefit last year, now we'd like you to spend another 10 mill purely for our benefit, which isn't even necessary anyway because it'd be perfectly possible for this new ferry to use the existing facility", that's fine and perfectly justified because as we know Weymouth & Portland Borough Council are a bunch of muppets, so they're naturally always to blame for everything, even attempts at extortion by monopolistic private companies? So extortion is fine when a bunch of muppets are the ones being extorted?

lets remember it WAS the councils responsibilty to do bi annual checks on the harbour set up which wasnt done, the 4 million spent to repair the wall was due to the councils mistake of not carrying out checks as they were meant to! They did not spent it as a favour to condor, rather a cover up for the councils mistake!

I have also seen comments on here asking why condor dont use portland, well we would still be in the same situation, no linkspan at portland! no terminal, poor traffic routes etc.....

The 10 million for the new berth would be recouped within 2 years within the local economy as condor reportedly brings in 7.7 mill a year to local economy already!

The council should invest the money if the want any future in weymouth!

You miss one small point here.
The council wants to spend £10m to earn £7m a year.
Where does most of that £7m end up?
In the hands of tourist business owners (their profits, from your taxes).
Very little of it finds its way back into government coffers.
Therefore the payback period is probably 10 years or more. Will Condor be prepared to sign for that long? If not, then this is not a viable investment.

Of course those "tourist business owners" spend money locally supporting other businesses that are not necessarily tourist orientated. They employ local people thereby providing incomes that are also spent locally. They pay business rates and council taxes if those businesses are residential. So by your reasoning that £7.7 million that only goes to those tourist business owners was lost, I think the knock on effect would be huge and disastrous.

I forgot to mention that these "tourist business owners" or at least this "tourist business" owner uses local tradesman for flooring, decorating, plumbing & furnishing. I use local garages for vehicle maintenance, I eat in local restaurants, drink in local pubs. In fact the very nature of my business means I rarely leave Weymouth at all. And there are a lot of people in the same business as me - and our money is pretty much spent the same way. So I think you'll find that quite a lot of that £7.7 million ends up back in the local economy even if it is vis an indirect route.

Nothing you have written contradicts my point, which is that most of the money ends up in private trousers (you can call that "local economy" if you like).
So in judging the return on investment, the council should only be considering the return that "government plc" gets back in its pockets.
I'd guess this is 10-20% of the quoted £7m and would include corporation tax, vat, business rates and, arguably, the savings made from benefits that would otherwise be paid to people who end up out of work as a consequence. I say arguably because i quite often here it trotted out that if businesses make more money, they'll employ more people. However, hiring decisions are made based on workload and not profit.

Score: 0

siriem
12:15pm Tue 22 Apr 14

JamesYoung wrote…

siriem wrote…

siriem wrote…

JamesYoung wrote…

sandman223 wrote…

arlbergbahn wrote…

So basically, as usual, it's all the Council's fault as usual, and the ferry company saying "you spent 4 mill for our benefit last year, now we'd like you to spend another 10 mill purely for our benefit, which isn't even necessary anyway because it'd be perfectly possible for this new ferry to use the existing facility", that's fine and perfectly justified because as we know Weymouth & Portland Borough Council are a bunch of muppets, so they're naturally always to blame for everything, even attempts at extortion by monopolistic private companies? So extortion is fine when a bunch of muppets are the ones being extorted?

lets remember it WAS the councils responsibilty to do bi annual checks on the harbour set up which wasnt done, the 4 million spent to repair the wall was due to the councils mistake of not carrying out checks as they were meant to! They did not spent it as a favour to condor, rather a cover up for the councils mistake!

I have also seen comments on here asking why condor dont use portland, well we would still be in the same situation, no linkspan at portland! no terminal, poor traffic routes etc.....

The 10 million for the new berth would be recouped within 2 years within the local economy as condor reportedly brings in 7.7 mill a year to local economy already!

The council should invest the money if the want any future in weymouth!

You miss one small point here.
The council wants to spend £10m to earn £7m a year.
Where does most of that £7m end up?
In the hands of tourist business owners (their profits, from your taxes).
Very little of it finds its way back into government coffers.
Therefore the payback period is probably 10 years or more. Will Condor be prepared to sign for that long? If not, then this is not a viable investment.

Of course those "tourist business owners" spend money locally supporting other businesses that are not necessarily tourist orientated. They employ local people thereby providing incomes that are also spent locally. They pay business rates and council taxes if those businesses are residential. So by your reasoning that £7.7 million that only goes to those tourist business owners was lost, I think the knock on effect would be huge and disastrous.

I forgot to mention that these "tourist business owners" or at least this "tourist business" owner uses local tradesman for flooring, decorating, plumbing & furnishing. I use local garages for vehicle maintenance, I eat in local restaurants, drink in local pubs. In fact the very nature of my business means I rarely leave Weymouth at all. And there are a lot of people in the same business as me - and our money is pretty much spent the same way. So I think you'll find that quite a lot of that £7.7 million ends up back in the local economy even if it is vis an indirect route.

Nothing you have written contradicts my point, which is that most of the money ends up in private trousers (you can call that "local economy" if you like).
So in judging the return on investment, the council should only be considering the return that "government plc" gets back in its pockets.
I'd guess this is 10-20% of the quoted £7m and would include corporation tax, vat, business rates and, arguably, the savings made from benefits that would otherwise be paid to people who end up out of work as a consequence. I say arguably because i quite often here it trotted out that if businesses make more money, they'll employ more people. However, hiring decisions are made based on workload and not profit.

I wasn't trying to contradict you - I was making a point of my own - however, surely the bulk of that £7 million is in harbour fees etc which does indeed go to the council not the "private trousers" that you seem to have a problem with.

[quote][p][bold]JamesYoung[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]siriem[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]siriem[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]JamesYoung[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]sandman223[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]arlbergbahn[/bold] wrote:
So basically, as usual, it's all the Council's fault as usual, and the ferry company saying "you spent 4 mill for our benefit last year, now we'd like you to spend another 10 mill purely for our benefit, which isn't even necessary anyway because it'd be perfectly possible for this new ferry to use the existing facility", that's fine and perfectly justified because as we know Weymouth & Portland Borough Council are a bunch of muppets, so they're naturally always to blame for everything, even attempts at extortion by monopolistic private companies? So extortion is fine when a bunch of muppets are the ones being extorted?[/p][/quote]lets remember it WAS the councils responsibilty to do bi annual checks on the harbour set up which wasnt done, the 4 million spent to repair the wall was due to the councils mistake of not carrying out checks as they were meant to! They did not spent it as a favour to condor, rather a cover up for the councils mistake!
I have also seen comments on here asking why condor dont use portland, well we would still be in the same situation, no linkspan at portland! no terminal, poor traffic routes etc.....
The 10 million for the new berth would be recouped within 2 years within the local economy as condor reportedly brings in 7.7 mill a year to local economy already!
The council should invest the money if the want any future in weymouth![/p][/quote]You miss one small point here.
The council wants to spend £10m to earn £7m a year.
Where does most of that £7m end up?
In the hands of tourist business owners (their profits, from your taxes).
Very little of it finds its way back into government coffers.
Therefore the payback period is probably 10 years or more. Will Condor be prepared to sign for that long? If not, then this is not a viable investment.[/p][/quote]Of course those "tourist business owners" spend money locally supporting other businesses that are not necessarily tourist orientated. They employ local people thereby providing incomes that are also spent locally. They pay business rates and council taxes if those businesses are residential. So by your reasoning that £7.7 million that only goes to those tourist business owners was lost, I think the knock on effect would be huge and disastrous.[/p][/quote]I forgot to mention that these "tourist business owners" or at least this "tourist business" owner uses local tradesman for flooring, decorating, plumbing & furnishing. I use local garages for vehicle maintenance, I eat in local restaurants, drink in local pubs. In fact the very nature of my business means I rarely leave Weymouth at all. And there are a lot of people in the same business as me - and our money is pretty much spent the same way. So I think you'll find that quite a lot of that £7.7 million ends up back in the local economy even if it is vis an indirect route.[/p][/quote]Nothing you have written contradicts my point, which is that most of the money ends up in private trousers (you can call that "local economy" if you like).
So in judging the return on investment, the council should only be considering the return that "government plc" gets back in its pockets.
I'd guess this is 10-20% of the quoted £7m and would include corporation tax, vat, business rates and, arguably, the savings made from benefits that would otherwise be paid to people who end up out of work as a consequence. I say arguably because i quite often here it trotted out that if businesses make more money, they'll employ more people. However, hiring decisions are made based on workload and not profit.[/p][/quote]I wasn't trying to contradict you - I was making a point of my own - however, surely the bulk of that £7 million is in harbour fees etc which does indeed go to the council not the "private trousers" that you seem to have a problem with.siriem

JamesYoung wrote…

siriem wrote…

siriem wrote…

JamesYoung wrote…

sandman223 wrote…

arlbergbahn wrote…

So basically, as usual, it's all the Council's fault as usual, and the ferry company saying "you spent 4 mill for our benefit last year, now we'd like you to spend another 10 mill purely for our benefit, which isn't even necessary anyway because it'd be perfectly possible for this new ferry to use the existing facility", that's fine and perfectly justified because as we know Weymouth & Portland Borough Council are a bunch of muppets, so they're naturally always to blame for everything, even attempts at extortion by monopolistic private companies? So extortion is fine when a bunch of muppets are the ones being extorted?

lets remember it WAS the councils responsibilty to do bi annual checks on the harbour set up which wasnt done, the 4 million spent to repair the wall was due to the councils mistake of not carrying out checks as they were meant to! They did not spent it as a favour to condor, rather a cover up for the councils mistake!

I have also seen comments on here asking why condor dont use portland, well we would still be in the same situation, no linkspan at portland! no terminal, poor traffic routes etc.....

The 10 million for the new berth would be recouped within 2 years within the local economy as condor reportedly brings in 7.7 mill a year to local economy already!

The council should invest the money if the want any future in weymouth!

You miss one small point here.
The council wants to spend £10m to earn £7m a year.
Where does most of that £7m end up?
In the hands of tourist business owners (their profits, from your taxes).
Very little of it finds its way back into government coffers.
Therefore the payback period is probably 10 years or more. Will Condor be prepared to sign for that long? If not, then this is not a viable investment.

Of course those "tourist business owners" spend money locally supporting other businesses that are not necessarily tourist orientated. They employ local people thereby providing incomes that are also spent locally. They pay business rates and council taxes if those businesses are residential. So by your reasoning that £7.7 million that only goes to those tourist business owners was lost, I think the knock on effect would be huge and disastrous.

I forgot to mention that these "tourist business owners" or at least this "tourist business" owner uses local tradesman for flooring, decorating, plumbing & furnishing. I use local garages for vehicle maintenance, I eat in local restaurants, drink in local pubs. In fact the very nature of my business means I rarely leave Weymouth at all. And there are a lot of people in the same business as me - and our money is pretty much spent the same way. So I think you'll find that quite a lot of that £7.7 million ends up back in the local economy even if it is vis an indirect route.

Nothing you have written contradicts my point, which is that most of the money ends up in private trousers (you can call that "local economy" if you like).
So in judging the return on investment, the council should only be considering the return that "government plc" gets back in its pockets.
I'd guess this is 10-20% of the quoted £7m and would include corporation tax, vat, business rates and, arguably, the savings made from benefits that would otherwise be paid to people who end up out of work as a consequence. I say arguably because i quite often here it trotted out that if businesses make more money, they'll employ more people. However, hiring decisions are made based on workload and not profit.

I wasn't trying to contradict you - I was making a point of my own - however, surely the bulk of that £7 million is in harbour fees etc which does indeed go to the council not the "private trousers" that you seem to have a problem with.

Score: 0

JamesYoung
2:32pm Tue 22 Apr 14

siriem wrote…

JamesYoung wrote…

siriem wrote…

siriem wrote…

JamesYoung wrote…

sandman223 wrote…

arlbergbahn wrote…

So basically, as usual, it's all the Council's fault as usual, and the ferry company saying "you spent 4 mill for our benefit last year, now we'd like you to spend another 10 mill purely for our benefit, which isn't even necessary anyway because it'd be perfectly possible for this new ferry to use the existing facility", that's fine and perfectly justified because as we know Weymouth & Portland Borough Council are a bunch of muppets, so they're naturally always to blame for everything, even attempts at extortion by monopolistic private companies? So extortion is fine when a bunch of muppets are the ones being extorted?

lets remember it WAS the councils responsibilty to do bi annual checks on the harbour set up which wasnt done, the 4 million spent to repair the wall was due to the councils mistake of not carrying out checks as they were meant to! They did not spent it as a favour to condor, rather a cover up for the councils mistake!

I have also seen comments on here asking why condor dont use portland, well we would still be in the same situation, no linkspan at portland! no terminal, poor traffic routes etc.....

The 10 million for the new berth would be recouped within 2 years within the local economy as condor reportedly brings in 7.7 mill a year to local economy already!

The council should invest the money if the want any future in weymouth!

You miss one small point here.
The council wants to spend £10m to earn £7m a year.
Where does most of that £7m end up?
In the hands of tourist business owners (their profits, from your taxes).
Very little of it finds its way back into government coffers.
Therefore the payback period is probably 10 years or more. Will Condor be prepared to sign for that long? If not, then this is not a viable investment.

Of course those "tourist business owners" spend money locally supporting other businesses that are not necessarily tourist orientated. They employ local people thereby providing incomes that are also spent locally. They pay business rates and council taxes if those businesses are residential. So by your reasoning that £7.7 million that only goes to those tourist business owners was lost, I think the knock on effect would be huge and disastrous.

I forgot to mention that these "tourist business owners" or at least this "tourist business" owner uses local tradesman for flooring, decorating, plumbing & furnishing. I use local garages for vehicle maintenance, I eat in local restaurants, drink in local pubs. In fact the very nature of my business means I rarely leave Weymouth at all. And there are a lot of people in the same business as me - and our money is pretty much spent the same way. So I think you'll find that quite a lot of that £7.7 million ends up back in the local economy even if it is vis an indirect route.

Nothing you have written contradicts my point, which is that most of the money ends up in private trousers (you can call that "local economy" if you like).
So in judging the return on investment, the council should only be considering the return that "government plc" gets back in its pockets.
I'd guess this is 10-20% of the quoted £7m and would include corporation tax, vat, business rates and, arguably, the savings made from benefits that would otherwise be paid to people who end up out of work as a consequence. I say arguably because i quite often here it trotted out that if businesses make more money, they'll employ more people. However, hiring decisions are made based on workload and not profit.

I wasn't trying to contradict you - I was making a point of my own - however, surely the bulk of that £7 million is in harbour fees etc which does indeed go to the council not the "private trousers" that you seem to have a problem with.

I haven't got a "problem with" it - i am just pointing out that the £7m figure is not the number that should be used in deciding whether or not an investment is worthwhile. Firstly, because the £10m comes out of the council's wallet but the £7m doesn't go back in and secondly, because it is very likely a made up number to start with. It is precisely because i cannot find a breakdown of that £7m that i am so suspicious - there is nothing obvious in the WPBC accounts about harbour fees.

[quote][p][bold]siriem[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]JamesYoung[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]siriem[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]siriem[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]JamesYoung[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]sandman223[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]arlbergbahn[/bold] wrote:
So basically, as usual, it's all the Council's fault as usual, and the ferry company saying "you spent 4 mill for our benefit last year, now we'd like you to spend another 10 mill purely for our benefit, which isn't even necessary anyway because it'd be perfectly possible for this new ferry to use the existing facility", that's fine and perfectly justified because as we know Weymouth & Portland Borough Council are a bunch of muppets, so they're naturally always to blame for everything, even attempts at extortion by monopolistic private companies? So extortion is fine when a bunch of muppets are the ones being extorted?[/p][/quote]lets remember it WAS the councils responsibilty to do bi annual checks on the harbour set up which wasnt done, the 4 million spent to repair the wall was due to the councils mistake of not carrying out checks as they were meant to! They did not spent it as a favour to condor, rather a cover up for the councils mistake!
I have also seen comments on here asking why condor dont use portland, well we would still be in the same situation, no linkspan at portland! no terminal, poor traffic routes etc.....
The 10 million for the new berth would be recouped within 2 years within the local economy as condor reportedly brings in 7.7 mill a year to local economy already!
The council should invest the money if the want any future in weymouth![/p][/quote]You miss one small point here.
The council wants to spend £10m to earn £7m a year.
Where does most of that £7m end up?
In the hands of tourist business owners (their profits, from your taxes).
Very little of it finds its way back into government coffers.
Therefore the payback period is probably 10 years or more. Will Condor be prepared to sign for that long? If not, then this is not a viable investment.[/p][/quote]Of course those "tourist business owners" spend money locally supporting other businesses that are not necessarily tourist orientated. They employ local people thereby providing incomes that are also spent locally. They pay business rates and council taxes if those businesses are residential. So by your reasoning that £7.7 million that only goes to those tourist business owners was lost, I think the knock on effect would be huge and disastrous.[/p][/quote]I forgot to mention that these "tourist business owners" or at least this "tourist business" owner uses local tradesman for flooring, decorating, plumbing & furnishing. I use local garages for vehicle maintenance, I eat in local restaurants, drink in local pubs. In fact the very nature of my business means I rarely leave Weymouth at all. And there are a lot of people in the same business as me - and our money is pretty much spent the same way. So I think you'll find that quite a lot of that £7.7 million ends up back in the local economy even if it is vis an indirect route.[/p][/quote]Nothing you have written contradicts my point, which is that most of the money ends up in private trousers (you can call that "local economy" if you like).
So in judging the return on investment, the council should only be considering the return that "government plc" gets back in its pockets.
I'd guess this is 10-20% of the quoted £7m and would include corporation tax, vat, business rates and, arguably, the savings made from benefits that would otherwise be paid to people who end up out of work as a consequence. I say arguably because i quite often here it trotted out that if businesses make more money, they'll employ more people. However, hiring decisions are made based on workload and not profit.[/p][/quote]I wasn't trying to contradict you - I was making a point of my own - however, surely the bulk of that £7 million is in harbour fees etc which does indeed go to the council not the "private trousers" that you seem to have a problem with.[/p][/quote]I haven't got a "problem with" it - i am just pointing out that the £7m figure is not the number that should be used in deciding whether or not an investment is worthwhile. Firstly, because the £10m comes out of the council's wallet but the £7m doesn't go back in and secondly, because it is very likely a made up number to start with. It is precisely because i cannot find a breakdown of that £7m that i am so suspicious - there is nothing obvious in the WPBC accounts about harbour fees.JamesYoung

siriem wrote…

JamesYoung wrote…

siriem wrote…

siriem wrote…

JamesYoung wrote…

sandman223 wrote…

arlbergbahn wrote…

So basically, as usual, it's all the Council's fault as usual, and the ferry company saying "you spent 4 mill for our benefit last year, now we'd like you to spend another 10 mill purely for our benefit, which isn't even necessary anyway because it'd be perfectly possible for this new ferry to use the existing facility", that's fine and perfectly justified because as we know Weymouth & Portland Borough Council are a bunch of muppets, so they're naturally always to blame for everything, even attempts at extortion by monopolistic private companies? So extortion is fine when a bunch of muppets are the ones being extorted?

lets remember it WAS the councils responsibilty to do bi annual checks on the harbour set up which wasnt done, the 4 million spent to repair the wall was due to the councils mistake of not carrying out checks as they were meant to! They did not spent it as a favour to condor, rather a cover up for the councils mistake!

I have also seen comments on here asking why condor dont use portland, well we would still be in the same situation, no linkspan at portland! no terminal, poor traffic routes etc.....

The 10 million for the new berth would be recouped within 2 years within the local economy as condor reportedly brings in 7.7 mill a year to local economy already!

The council should invest the money if the want any future in weymouth!

You miss one small point here.
The council wants to spend £10m to earn £7m a year.
Where does most of that £7m end up?
In the hands of tourist business owners (their profits, from your taxes).
Very little of it finds its way back into government coffers.
Therefore the payback period is probably 10 years or more. Will Condor be prepared to sign for that long? If not, then this is not a viable investment.

Of course those "tourist business owners" spend money locally supporting other businesses that are not necessarily tourist orientated. They employ local people thereby providing incomes that are also spent locally. They pay business rates and council taxes if those businesses are residential. So by your reasoning that £7.7 million that only goes to those tourist business owners was lost, I think the knock on effect would be huge and disastrous.

I forgot to mention that these "tourist business owners" or at least this "tourist business" owner uses local tradesman for flooring, decorating, plumbing & furnishing. I use local garages for vehicle maintenance, I eat in local restaurants, drink in local pubs. In fact the very nature of my business means I rarely leave Weymouth at all. And there are a lot of people in the same business as me - and our money is pretty much spent the same way. So I think you'll find that quite a lot of that £7.7 million ends up back in the local economy even if it is vis an indirect route.

Nothing you have written contradicts my point, which is that most of the money ends up in private trousers (you can call that "local economy" if you like).
So in judging the return on investment, the council should only be considering the return that "government plc" gets back in its pockets.
I'd guess this is 10-20% of the quoted £7m and would include corporation tax, vat, business rates and, arguably, the savings made from benefits that would otherwise be paid to people who end up out of work as a consequence. I say arguably because i quite often here it trotted out that if businesses make more money, they'll employ more people. However, hiring decisions are made based on workload and not profit.

I wasn't trying to contradict you - I was making a point of my own - however, surely the bulk of that £7 million is in harbour fees etc which does indeed go to the council not the "private trousers" that you seem to have a problem with.

I haven't got a "problem with" it - i am just pointing out that the £7m figure is not the number that should be used in deciding whether or not an investment is worthwhile. Firstly, because the £10m comes out of the council's wallet but the £7m doesn't go back in and secondly, because it is very likely a made up number to start with. It is precisely because i cannot find a breakdown of that £7m that i am so suspicious - there is nothing obvious in the WPBC accounts about harbour fees.

Score: 0

caz maz
5:10pm Tue 22 Apr 14

Talk to LD lines, You can go Poole to Spain much cheaper with them than Going to France with condor...........its a no brainer, get rid of condor and get another company.

Talk to LD lines, You can go Poole to Spain much cheaper with them than Going to France with condor...........its a no brainer, get rid of condor and get another company.caz maz

Talk to LD lines, You can go Poole to Spain much cheaper with them than Going to France with condor...........its a no brainer, get rid of condor and get another company.

Score: 0

JamesYoung
9:52pm Tue 22 Apr 14

caz maz wrote…

Talk to LD lines, You can go Poole to Spain much cheaper with them than Going to France with condor...........its a no brainer, get rid of condor and get another company.

That would make sense, but i assume that's not a daily service as it's a long steam to Spain and back.

[quote][p][bold]caz maz[/bold] wrote:
Talk to LD lines, You can go Poole to Spain much cheaper with them than Going to France with condor...........its a no brainer, get rid of condor and get another company.[/p][/quote]That would make sense, but i assume that's not a daily service as it's a long steam to Spain and back.JamesYoung

caz maz wrote…

Talk to LD lines, You can go Poole to Spain much cheaper with them than Going to France with condor...........its a no brainer, get rid of condor and get another company.

That would make sense, but i assume that's not a daily service as it's a long steam to Spain and back.

Score: 0

Caption Sensible
6:15pm Wed 23 Apr 14

I think it is time to completely re-evaluate the relationship with Condor and set-up a dedicated team to look at the development potential of the whole ferry terminal site.

This is a prime waterfront area and it should be a major part of Weymouth's appeal. Sadly it is anything but that at the moment.

People with real expertise and competence should only be allowed to report back and advise. This site is too important to leave in the hands of those not suitably qualified or experienced.

I think it is time to completely re-evaluate the relationship with Condor and set-up a dedicated team to look at the development potential of the whole ferry terminal site.
This is a prime waterfront area and it should be a major part of Weymouth's appeal. Sadly it is anything but that at the moment.
People with real expertise and competence should only be allowed to report back and advise. This site is too important to leave in the hands of those not suitably qualified or experienced.Caption Sensible

I think it is time to completely re-evaluate the relationship with Condor and set-up a dedicated team to look at the development potential of the whole ferry terminal site.

This is a prime waterfront area and it should be a major part of Weymouth's appeal. Sadly it is anything but that at the moment.

People with real expertise and competence should only be allowed to report back and advise. This site is too important to leave in the hands of those not suitably qualified or experienced.

Ipsoregulated

This website and associated newspapers adhere to the Independent Press Standards Organisation's Editors' Code of Practice. If you have a complaint about the editorial content which relates to inaccuracy or intrusion, then please contact the editor here. If you are dissatisfied with the response provided you can contact IPSO here